Talk:Stacey Abrams/Archive 2

Request for Comment: Refusal to concede 2018 gubernatorial election

Participants wanted this RFC closed. Any objections, can be rendered by reversing this close. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently, there is an extensive dispute ongoing regarding wording in the lead. Specifically, the dispute relates to mention of Stacey Abrams's refusal to concede the 2018 election; this has involved a wide number of editors, and no clear consensus has been reached on wording. Several proposals have been created during this discussion, which I've opened to finally resolve the issue. Toa Nidhiki05 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Options Option 1: Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. News outlets and political science experts have been unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result. Option 2: Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. Abrams has said she has no empirical evidence, and news outlets and political science experts have found no verified evidence as of November 2019. Option 3: Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Note: I've added an additional citation to the status quo version (Option 1): Generalrelative (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) References Tagging participants Tagging the following users who have engaged in discussion here or at the BLP noticeboard: Generalrelative, Muboshgu, SPECIFICO, Endwise, GoodDay, Politrukki, Bill Williams, Davefelmer, Starship.paint, Andrevan, Viriditas, Mr Ernie, Viriditas, Rhododendrites, Animalparty, Arkon, and Masem Comments Support Option 2 Provides the best balance of reliable sourcing, including both Abrams's own words and the research of fact checkers and analysts without overly vilifying Abrams, while also not potentially misleading readers into thinking there is empirical evidence to back Abrams's claims. Toa Nidhiki05 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Comment - I'm going to wait until after the mid-term elections, before deciding which is the best option. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Oppose Option 2 due to the Abrams has said she has no empirical evidence [of voter suppression] being potentially misleading. As I have already said above, the actual quote by Abrams [1] is I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election. I believe that this is slightly different and nuanced, thus Option 2 is not accurate enough. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC) There are further problems with Option 2, it says have found no verified evidence [of voter suppression], but the sources are more nuanced, AJC: no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election, Politifact - it isn’t possible to prove if any election law or policy in Georgia cost Abrams [...] "... the evidence is missing" [...] "... it’s difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting", WaPo - where you land depends on how you view the wide range of pertinent evidence. Due to this, Option 1 and Option 3 are better. starship.paint (exalt) 02:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Oppose Option 2 Don't really like any of these options and I am not sure if this is a neutral selection, but Option 1 seems the least objectionable of these, since we know voter suppression likely does affect the results[2][3][4] Andre🚐 01:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Comment (Summoned by bot) – holding my !vote per WP:NODEADLINE until after the election. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Options 1 and 3 and weakly oppose option 2. While most of this discussion serves as pretty clear-cut evidence of the left-wing political bias on Wikipedia, option 2 is the least biased of the 3. The wording is far from neutral, though. 174.105.195.98 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Support Option 1 (strongly oppose Option 2). There doesn’t seem to be much controversy over whether Kemp made decisions as Secretary of State aimed at making it harder for Democratic-leaning populations to vote, only whether his efforts were sufficient to have tipped the election. All of the five sources cited to support the status quo sentence in Option 1, with the exception of the first, say essentially the same thing. And that first source, which notes that no evidence of systematic irregularities had yet emerged, was published while the race was still too close to call. Option 2 appears to suggest that experts see no evidence that Kemp behaved in this way, which is flatly false. What the experts say is that there is no evidence for the stronger claim that suppression was sufficient to have tipped the election. Here are some quotes: Amy Sherman, "No proof voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams from governorship, as Democrats said in Atlanta debate" PolitiFact: Kemp made some controversial decisions that probably hurt Democrats overall, but it’s difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting, Daniel P. Tokaji, who teaches election law at Ohio State University, told PolitiFact. "The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp," he said. Amy Sherman, "Kamala Harris says voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum out of office. Really?" PolitiFact: includes the same quote: While Kemp made some controversial decisions that probably hurt Democrats overall, it is difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting, said Daniel P. Tokaji, who teaches election law at Ohio State University. "The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp," he said. Glenn Kessler, "Did racially motivated voter suppression thwart Stacey Abrams?" The Washington Post: The weeks leading up to the election were dominated by questions of voter suppression, in part because of the unusual circumstance that Kemp refused to recuse himself from overseeing the election, so his every move was viewed with suspicion by the Abrams camp. In the closing days of the race, Kemp without evidence accused the Democrats of cybercrimes, apparently to distract from his office’s own voter-registration problems. [...] Hasen, the UC Irvine expert, said the practices used under Kemp raise serious questions even if one cannot prove they affected the election outcome. “There is no question that Georgia in general and Brian Kemp in particular took steps to make it harder for people to register and vote, and that those people tended to skew Democratic,” Hasen said. “I have seen no good social science evidence that efforts to make it harder to register and vote were responsible for Kemp’s victory over Abrams in the Georgia gubernatorial race. That seems to me to be beside the point: The question is whether Georgia had a good reason to put these suppressive measures in place, and for the most part, the state did not have good reasons.” Richard Hasen, Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy: As Ari Berman put it, "We don't know – and may never know – how many people were disenfranchised or dissuaded from voting in the state. But it's clear that Kemp did everything in his power to put in place restrictive voting policies that would help his candidacy and hurt his opponent, all while overseeing his own election." Emphasis added of course. Should be clear, I think, from these quotes that it's simply unknown whether Georgia's voting irregularities during the 2018 election –– which appear to have been the result of policy changes deliberately targeted at reducing the ability of Democratic-leaning populations to vote –– were sufficient to tip the results. Should Abrams have been more circumspect in how she spoke about the election in retrospect? Most sources appear to agree: yes. But they also tend to agree that her concerns about voter suppression were based in reality. Generalrelative (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Support Option 1 - (Summoned by bot) (also participated in the BLPN thread, but the above pings didn't work FYI). The distinction the sources make is between (a) a variety of election-related changes/processes that seem like they would hurt Abrams and (b) the ability to prove that those changes made a quantitative difference. As for number 2: she said in that one source that she is basing her arguments on empirical evidence for (a), but doesn't have empirical evidence for (b), but the proposer (now topic banned) has cherrypicked the second alone. Three seems intended to avoid conflict, but at the expense of clarity. Many sources have written about her claims, so there's no need to end with an accusation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Back-and-forth On a separate note: I noticed this RFC has been closed, re-opened, re-closed, re-opened, etc etc. I'm going to send out pings to those who've already participated in it. They deserve to know whether or not their input may be disregarded, closed, etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC) @174.105.195.98:, @Andrevan:, @Starship.paint:, @Mathglot:, perhaps you all can decide. Should the RFC be closed or not? GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Please don't take my participation in the RFC as a desire to keep it open. I do think it could be closed and reopened with a different set of options or perhaps just continue the discussion. Andre🚐 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Same here. If SPECIFICO had simply re-closed without removing my comments (along with those of Mathglot and the IP) I wouldn't have reverted. Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC) We'll likely not hear from the IP again, but Mathglot & Starship.paint needed to be pinged. I think we all can agree, it's best to wait until after the 2022 gubernatorial election is held, before continuing (if needed) the discussion-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC) GoodDay, maybe you would then do the honor of closing the RfC? You've been observing the conversation but so far appear to be uninvolved in advocating for either side. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC) I will do so, if I've consent from you, Andrevan, Starship.paint & Mathglot. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC) No objection Andre🚐 05:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Awesome, thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: - no objection. starship.paint (exalt) 07:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Mathgot is aware, but hasn't chimed in, so I'll take that as consent. Leaving a ping for @Rhododendrites:, as well. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What Church is Supporting her by letting her use them for her platform ?

What Church has allowed her to Campaign there and in doing so made a Statement that all of their Parishioners agree with her views”? 2601:CF:4780:4290:F9F5:AFFC:1FDE:69E9 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Abortion and ultrasound comments

On 2022Sep21, Abrams said; "There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks, It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body." This is patently inaccurate (a heart exists, and is beating) and it includes three separate wild accusations; that the sound of the heartbeat is "manufactured" (ie, false, or a misrepresentation), that the persons who created the "manufactured sound" are men, and that the purpose of that sound is a part of a "design....to take control of a women's body." This is patently ludicrous on every level. It reveals a great deal of misunderstanding of biology, a wildly offensive slur ("They sneakily created a fraud sound") of men, and their plotting objectives (to take control of women's bodies (laughable.)). This utterance needs to be added verbatim to this article, in the Positions (a new abortion section?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Except that what Stacey Abrams said about the "fetal heartbeat" being a sound manufactured by the machine is absolutely accurate.[5] Buried past the political nonsense in this article, it says According to the ACOG, it is “inaccurate to use the word ‘heartbeat’ to describe the sound that can be heard on ultrasound in very early pregnancy.” “In fact, there are no chambers of the heart developed at the early stage in pregnancy that this word is used to describe, so there is no recognizable ‘heartbeat,’” the organization writes online. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive bickering. Editors are reminded to avoid personal attacks, and remember that talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject. Politrukki (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What she said is accurate. The entire anti-abortion movement is aimed to take control of women's bodies, not to protect lives. Dimadick (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC) And here we see the outrageous, pathological bias that controls wikipedia. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Nonsense 2601:205:8380:9B60:74A5:B49:695D:DE27 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC) "The entire anti-abortion movement is aimed to take control of women's bodies, not to protect lives." Gee, good to see Wikipedia has some unbiased editors! This will be another one photographed. Thanks! 2600:8805:A985:4300:3905:B1B6:9F63:FD28 (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC) This IP should be blocked for WP:POVPUSH. They've been making fringe edits like this for over a year. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, you have not summarised the sources properly. Your first source predates Abrams's comments. And doesn't even mention Abrams. The second source provides some important context that you dismissed as "political nonsense": "Ultimately, there appears to be some conflicting information among different health professionals and organizations about when a heartbeat can be heard during pregnancy." There's more, but I'm not going to quote it all. Does this mean that the content should included as the OP suggested ("added verbatim to this article")? No, but the controversy cannot be dismissed like you did. Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Category question

Should Abrams be included in Category:American election deniers? Pinging Doncram, Toa Nidhiki05, and Politrukki, who've all edited to add/remove the category. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

She unquestionably qualifies. She has denied the fairness, legitimacy, and result of the 2018 election and refused to concede defeat - that's pretty clear election denial if I've ever seen it. If she's not in the category, it should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you cite a source (preferably more than one) that describes her as such? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you want a source that calls her an election denier, or sources where she denies an election? Either would be valid, in my opinion - I wouldn't think a source using the specific words "election denier" is all that's required, if a figure is self-evidently denying an election. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged. I recently created Category:Election deniers with belief that it can be objectively determined whether a person is known as an election denier, i.e. one who promotes/advocates known-to-be-false conspiracy theory of election(s) being stolen. Like the leaders of whatever Flat Earth society can be identified as flat-earthers. And I searched in Wikipedia for occurrences of "election denier" and similar, and added the category to a number of bio articles where the term seemed to be well-supported. This article popped up, to my surprise, as different than all others. I saw that the Wall Street Journal article characterizes Abrams as having a "rhetorical" version of election denial, but it does seem to be election denial, and that application of the category made sense. However, in the future use of the category may yet be limited to those persons who are primarily known as election deniers (which Abrams is not), or for whom election denial is very substantially a widely known defining characteristic or such, so maybe the category will not apply according to such a refined definition for the category. But currently, yes, I think it is established that she has very publicly claimed, repeatedly, a false conspiracy theory that an election was stolen, contrary to reality, so the category does currently apply. --Doncram (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

However, it has evolved that Category:Election deniers, like other BLP categories, should be limited to cases where the term is a "defining characteristic". For Abrams, it is not, so I do not support use of this category. --Doncram (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Defining characteristic is the standard for nearly all categories, including non-BLP ones. Editors frequently argue whether certain articles meet the standard for inclusion. Dimadick (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Now that Category:American election deniers has been deleted, there still remains the question, should Abrams be included in some "election denier" cat. My answer would be no, because it's not a defining characteristic of Abrams in reliable sources and because per BLPCAT categorisation shouldn't be made unless the purpose is obvious. Even if we know as a fact that someone drives a bicycle, that doesn't make them a bicyclist.

To use some actual examples, I have opposed categorising Lawrence Tribe and Christopher Steele as "conspiracy theorists". Even though it has been established that they have promoted conspiracy theories, very few, if any sources actually refer to them as "conspiracy theorist NN".

(I think I was pinged, but I didn't see the it because I have disabled pings. I think I was pinged to BLPN too, but I didn't notice the discussion until it was archived.) Politrukki (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to concede 2018 gubernatorial election

I expect to be challenged over this edit, so I'm opening up a place to discuss how we handle Abrams' refusal to concede the 2018 gubernatorial election in the article lead. I'll get things started by restating my edit summary: Rm piling on in the lead. The one sentence about how she lost and then refused to concede is sufficient. Anything more violates WP:TONE and unduly privileges one section of the article for representation in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with that edit. There has been a POV push on this article to call her an "election denier" (see above) and trying to equate what Abrams did in 2018 with what Trump did in 2020, despite the chasm of difference between the two situations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The edit was good. Any mention of that needs to be fully contextualized to make clear the difference between what she did and obstructing the transition of power a la Republicans. This false equivilence is being promoted far and wide and is part of the environment in which readers will come to this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Re Muboshgu & Specifico, I'm not sure I see the relevance to Trump/Republicans here; this article's content should stand alone on its own merits. Endwise (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What basis do you have for publishing a comment referring to the 2022 election in that manner. That's a POV political statement and a BLP issue. Please provide sourcing or delete your comment. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) NOTE: After this request, @Good Day: promptly removed the BLP comment.00:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I see problems here with WP:FRINGE. We cannot present her claims as mainstream if they are broadly rejected by RS/scholarship/etc. on the matter. I agree that some of the detail with quotes etc. were too much though. Endwise (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this argument, and think your partial revert was a decent compromise for now. I did tweak the final clause you re-added because it was a pretty stark misrepresentation of the cited source. I'm sure that was unintentional on your part. One had to check the source to see that it only referred to a single case. Generalrelative (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks -- the lawsuit stuff was not something I had looked into much, I just left it in from the way it was written previously. Possibly that could be left out too. Endwise (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool, I agree that that's a distinct possibility. I'll wait to hear what others have to say on the matter before removing it. Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

While others are trying to make false equivocation points, Abrams's 2018 denial is a core part of her public life. It's something she's reiterated in speeches, that has dominated news articles for 4 years now, and was even included in a documentary film. While concessions are not required, declaring elections to the "stolen" and "rigged" goes beyond the pale - and her claims aren't backed up by evidence, either. However, as long as the lead mentions that she's refused to concede the election and that experts and journalists say this wasn't the case, it's fine. The body goes in-depth on this anyway. WP:OTHERSTUFF does not matter here - what matters is what reliable sources say, and they roundly reject her claims - courts are also on the same page here. Like Endwise said, per WP:FRINGE we can't present her claims without pointing out they aren't backed by facts. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's likely something to re-look into, if she loses in 2022 & claims (again) that Kemp stole the election. However, if she wins the 2022 election? well, I reckon the matter will become somewhat moot. Let's all hope, whoever wins? Does so by a huge margin ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a big enough concern that both debates had questions on whether she'd concede. She was mum on the first debate, and then said she would on the second. It seems unlikely she wins right now, however.Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Worth hoping, but very unlikely in an inelastic state like Georgia where partisan preferences are close to 50/50. For excellent reporting on the current state of the race, see this from FiveThirtyEight. Generalrelative (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that SPECIFICO's recent edit resolved the outstanding issue, given the analysis of the source I've provided below. Generalrelative (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Toa reverted that, but I've reverted it back. Sources cited there are clear in saying they cannot state definitively, not that there's "no evidence" supporting Abrams' claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not exactly consistent with AJC or with the Politifact analysis that cites Richard Hasen: "I have seen no good evidence that the suppressive effects of strict voting and registration laws affected the outcome of the governor's races in Georgia and Florida," he told PolitiFact. "It would be one thing to claim, as some have, that these laws are aimed to suppress the vote and likely suppressed some votes. It is quite another to claim that there is good proof they affected the outcome." Politrukki (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

See my discussion of those sources below. In the best case, that would be one expert, not "experts". Generalrelative (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of individual sources

• I just read one of the articles used to support the News outlets and political science experts have found no evidence statement and saw that it's also being misrepresented here. It's the Washington Post piece "Did racially motivated voter suppression thwart Stacey Abrams?" and it actually emphasizes that there are "compelling" arguments on both sides of the debate. It concludes:

  This is the political version of a Rorschach test — where you land depends on how you view the wide range of pertinent evidence. Buttigieg suggested his statement was a factual claim, not in dispute, though it’s really more of an opinion. As we noted, there’s a fine line, especially in Southern states, between efforts to thwart votes by Democrats vs. suppressing minorities, making it especially difficult to untangle. Abrams fell short by 55,000 votes out of nearly 4 million cast, in a case filled with election mischief and fierce disputes. Buttigieg should not be so definitive in his assertion that Abrams would have won if not for racially motivated measures. But at this point, we think it prudent to leave this without a Pinocchio rating, though we may revisit this fact check if more definitive evidence emerges in the future.

  I do think that a faithful breakdown of this piece's argument would benefit the present article, so I won't remove the citation for now, but we should be aware that it's not currently being presented in a WP:BALANCEd manner. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Working my way backward, I read the PolitiFact piece "Kamala Harris says voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum out of office. Really?" and see that it too is not being represented in a balanced manner. Its essential takeaway:

  In explaining Abrams’ loss, Harris faulted controversial actions by Brian Kemp, who was the Republican secretary of state in charge of state elections before he beat Abrams to become Georgia governor. While Kemp made some controversial decisions that probably hurt Democrats overall, it is difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting, said Daniel P. Tokaji, who teaches election law at Ohio State University. "The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp," he said. "It’s not necessarily inaccurate for Sen. Harris to make this claim, but it is speculative."

  I'll keep working through these sources, but so far I'm noticing a pattern. Generalrelative (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• The next one, also from PolitiFact, "No proof voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams from governorship, as Democrats said in Atlanta debate" is essentially an updated version of the previous one, and includes a similar quote:

  Abrams lost by almost 55,000 votes in a race with record turnout for a midterm race, said University of Georgia political scientist Charles S. Bullock. Black turnout in 2018 actually slightly exceeded that in 2016, he said. "The claim is a good talking point, but the evidence is missing," he said. Kemp made some controversial decisions that probably hurt Democrats overall, but it’s difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting, Daniel P. Tokaji, who teaches election law at Ohio State University, told PolitiFact. "The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp," he said.

  Despite how definitive the headline might seem, the emphasis is really upon uncertainty rather than on the idea that Abrams has made unfounded claims. That said, this one does at least quote an expert stating explicitly that evidence for Abrams' claim is "missing". Generalrelative (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• The final source for the statement in question, "Did voting problems influence outcome in Georgia election?" from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was published when the race remained "too close to call", so was reporting in the heat of the moment. It does report on numerous instances of voters being illegitimately denied the ability to vote, but noted that no evidence had emerged that these were part of a "systematic" effort to suppress the vote:

  Such irregularities appear to have occurred across Georgia in this week’s election for governor and other statewide offices, according to interviews by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution with voters, campaign operatives and election officials. However, no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams.

  It reported that Abrams' campaign manager Lauren Groh-Wargo had held a news conference alleging that Kemp –– in his capacity as Secretary of State –– was pressuring counties to certify returns before all of those ballots are counted and noted that Groh-Wargo had offered no evidence of such pressure. Crucially, that is one specific claim from one specific press conference, and the person making the allegation was not Abrams herself. In sum, this piece, like the one from the Washington Post discussed above, could definitely be useful if accurately presented to the reader. But I'm afraid that in this context the source does not really do the work that's being asked of it. Generalrelative (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Is there a way to reword this to resolve your concerns? Toa Nidhiki05 19:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I stated above, I think that SPECIFICO's rewording did the trick. Generalrelative (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

She denied the election results as reported on by dozens of reliable sources, and there was zero evidence that "voter suppression" affected the election results. The lead had numerous sources on the matter, using weasel words like " unable to determine whether or not voter suppression affected its result" is completely misleading to readers by implying her accusations have not been disproven. The burden of proof lies upon her for making the claims, please read Russell's teapot. If she has no evidence then we should state there is no evidence. Bill Williams 02:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just like with Trump, Kari Lake, Mastriano, and Josh Hawley -- right, Bill? Same thing? SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Your mention of random Republicans is an odd one, can you please tell me how my numerous sources are incorrect? Every sources states those people denied the election results, but what is their relation to Stacey Abrams anyway? Bill Williams 02:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"The Georgia gubernatorial candidate has held firm in not conceding her prior bid in 2018." ... "In her final speech 10 days later and at speaking engagements over the following months, Abrams maintained that she was not conceding the race." [6]

"Kemp narrowly defeated Abrams in the state’s gubernatorial race in 2018, but Abrams refused to concede citing a “rigged” system and accusing Kemp of suppressing votes. " [7]

"She was asked during the interview whether a refusal to concede, as she did in 2018, emboldens former President Trump and his allies, who continue to question the integrity of the election system." ... "In a speech 10 days after that election she said, "I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right."" [8]

"But she specifically said in her final speech that she was not concede due to persistent voter suppression allegations, adding that conceding would mean acknowledging “an action is right, true or proper” and “as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that.”" [9]

"If you look at my immediate reaction after the election, I refused to concede.6

6After her attempts to force a runoff fell short, Abrams ended her campaign for governor with a speech in which she said, ‘‘So let’s be clear — this is not a speech of concession, because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper.’’ She added, ‘‘Democracy failed Georgians.’’ ... " I do not concede that the process was proper, nor do I condone that process." [10]

"The 2018 Democratic candidate for governor, Stacey Abrams, also refused to concede to her Republican opponent, Brian Kemp." ... "Abrams lost by nearly 55,000 votes and never did concede." [11]

If this isn't enough evidence alone on the first page of google, then I don't know what is. Arguing semantics does not benefit readers, the clear reality is that she refused to concede, as stated by every reliable source. Bill Williams 02:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally quoting the sources cited in the lead as I did in my edit summary, "no empirical evidence" (usatoday) "false claim based on no evidence" (wapo) "no proof" (politifact) "no evidence" (ajc)." This is longstanding content in the lead and removing it is only misleading to readers. Bill Williams 02:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the sources. For example you quote "false claim based on no evidence" (wapo) without noting that the Washington Post article frames this as a Republican talking point: It has become an article of faith among Democrats, especially those running for president, that Stacey Abrams was narrowly denied the governorship of Georgia because of voter suppression. It is equally an article of faith by Republicans that this is a false claim based on no evidence. Wikipedia is not in the business of shilling for anyone's articles of faith, least of all in a BLP. The current version of the sentence does a decent job of avoiding falling into either the Republican or the Democratic partisan narratives, as do our sources. Generalrelative (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"unable to determine whether or not voter suppression affected its result" is an absurd mischaracterization if it is impossible to prove such a claim. What is proven is that Abrams presented no evidence, and nobody could find a single shred of evidence, as stated by the sources. It is impossible to prove that Bigfoot does not exist, but claims that Bigfoot exists are without evidence, simple as that. Bill Williams 02:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bigfoot analogy may be apt for all sorts of things, but not this. Both of the PolitiFact articles, for instance, say While Kemp made some controversial decisions that probably hurt Democrats overall, it is difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting (emphasis added). Generalrelative (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's a terrible term to use. There's not been any evidence found, it's been four years. A more neutral wording is that no evidence supporting her claims have been found. This doesn't mean she's wrong - there's just not been any evidence found! I would also point out the adjusted version being re-added is not the consensus version; per WP:EDITCON, the long-standing text should be kept instead if there's truly a conflict. Toa Nidhiki05 03:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:BLPREMOVE. It appears to be the contention of several editors here that "no evidence" represents an original synthesis rather than a clear-cut summary of the sources. Therefore that description stays out pending a new consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, you removed a source that bolstered the claim there's no evidence. Although, to be specific, it says "no empirical evidence that now-Gov. Kemp stole that election from her". Do you take an issue with omitting "empirical"?

Hasen, who is again quoted in Kessler's column, says "I have seen no good social science evidence that efforts to make it harder to register and vote were responsible for Kemp's victory over Abrams in the Georgia gubernatorial race." I think "social science evidence" matches with "empirical evidence", but who am I to say? Abrams has said, "I cannot prove empirically that I would've won, but we will never know." and "I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes."

If you don't accept "no evidence", would you accept "no empirical evidence"? Or "no substantial evidence"? Politrukki (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wins and losses

This edit to the lead is awful. It completely misses the point, which is that Georgia election practices were found lawful. There were three remaining claims. The judge ruled in favour of the state on all remaining issues. Politrukki (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve reverted it. It’s straight-up inaccurate and misleading. None of Abrams’s claims won out in court. Toa Nidhiki05 11:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Lawful does not address the issue of voter suppression. We just need to reflect what the cited sources say, not the opinions of WP editors. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t about voter suppression. It’s about whether the lawsuit resulted in victories for Fair Fight - which it didn’t. The cases ended in defeat for Fair Fight. None of the lawsuit’s claims ended in victory for Fair Fight. Claiming otherwise is straight up misleading. Toa Nidhiki05 12:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

When it was originally filed, it was extremely broad and called for a significant overhaul of Georgia’s election system. By the time it got to trial, the scope had been significantly narrowed because some allegations were resolved by changes in state law and others were dismissed by the court.

The proposed change is by far the most misleading way to phrase the lawsuit’s result. It’s like an article on a football game saying “both teams scored a lot of points” but not mentioning who actually. Toa Nidhiki05 12:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

POLITICO article:

Fair Fight Action v. Raffensperger started as a sprawling case that included allegations of unreasonably long lines and wait times caused by moving and closing polling places; the impact of voter ID rules on people of color, voters with non-Anglo Saxon names and newly naturalized citizens; improper maintenance of Georgia’s voter rolls; inadequate training of poll workers; and even the integrity of voting machines. The original complaint included allegations that voting machines were vulnerable to hacking and were switching votes intended for Abrams into votes for Kemp. Fair Fight Action found two voters who said they had to select the button to vote for Abrams four times before the machine’s screen showed a vote for Abrams instead of Kemp. Fair Fight Action removed this allegation in December 2020 in a revised complaint, at the same moment then President Donald Trump was making similar unfounded allegations in his effort to overturn the presidential election results in Georgia. More than two years after the case was filed, Judge Steve Jones narrowed its scope to three issues.

All three issues were rejected by the court. It’s actually outrageous to claim that intermediate stages of litigation someone matter, because they don’t. I’m sure some random judge somewhere agreed with Trump’s crackpot Kraken lawsuit - that doesn’t mean “both sides had wins and losses”. Toa Nidhiki05 12:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

AJC - The judge who decided against Fair Fight on all counts wrote in his ruling that the case wasn’t entirely one-sided. - lead should reflect this (while reflecting the loss). starship.paint (exalt) 13:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is misleading. It's talking about the entire slate of litigation. Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but that Generalrelative–SPECIFICO version was completely unworkable. Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"unworkable" is not an argument. You need to address all the issues that have been explained in support of the text you reject. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(This is about this revert. We have moved forward.) Not adhering to neutral point of view. Mentioning the lawsuit without mentioning that all Fair Fight's claims were rejected is misleading. You have not made any effort to explain how "wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation" is representative of reliable sources, some of which mention the quote, others don't. Politrukki (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The point that critics of this edit are missing is that over the course of the four years between when Fair Fight filed the lawsuit and when it was finally resolved, the state of Georgia changed its laws to remove the most egregious voting restrictions about which the lawsuit was seeking remedy. These changes are counted by the judge as "wins" for the plaintiff. It's a misrepresentation of the source to present the lawsuit as though it were a failure on the part of Fair Fight. In fact it accomplished a lot, though less than hoped. Generalrelative (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You argue it accomplished a lot. The state would disagree. Why not reword to not claim false victories, and instead say something like "...but the state did change some of the challenged voting laws during ligitation." Toa Nidhiki05 17:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We present what the sources present, not how you would write it if you were hired by a RS. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

IF you want to actually engage productively here, give an actual critique of my proposal, not an ad hominem attack. All of Fair Fight's claims were rejected by courts - those "wins", as Generalrelative notes, were outside of litigation. Currently, the lead incorrectly implies the courts handed Fair Fight wins. This is simply not accurate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The point is that the judge stated that it accomplished a lot. For context, see the AJC piece helpfully added as a ref and quoted by Starship.paint above: [12] Generalrelative (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The judge is being courteous after a years-long trial. Go off what reliable sources say - please identify the wins Fair Fight achieved in court. What your source even says: "The lawsuit started as a broad effort to overturn alleged obstacles to voting, including voter registration purges, absentee ballot rejections and long lines at polling places. Several rulings reduced the claims, and the plaintiffs last week lost on those issues as well, dealing with “exact match” voter registration rules, absentee ballot cancellation practices, and voter registration verification of suspected felons and new U.S. citizens." Fair Fight did not win on any claim they made, and your wording inaccurately implies they did. All of the Fair Fight claims failed in court; the current wording is not accurate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This will be my final response to you on the matter because I'm not interested in repeating myself or what others have already stated. You say: The judge is being courteous after a years-long trial. That is an original opinion of yours, not founded in any source that you or anyone else has provided. Surely you know that that's an invalid way to argue on a Wikipedia talk page. You say: Go off what reliable sources say. Indeed, that means not just cherry-picking quotes but looking at the relevant part of the article in question, which in this case is the bit quoted by Starship.paint above, where it says: The judge who decided against Fair Fight on all counts wrote in his ruling that the case wasn’t entirely one-sided and then quotes that judge about how there had been wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation. Your argument appears to be that the sources do not say this, but we've clearly shown that they do. That's why this nuance needs to be reflected in the text, and I think that Starship.paint's compromise wording does a decent job of it. Generalrelative (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if you know how a trial works or not, Generalrelative so I'll explain what you keep referring to as "the relevant part" of the article in question. What you are citing is not part of the judge's opinion; you can read the opinion right here. What you are citing is a preamble that is basically very quickly summing up the facts of the case and litigation history. It is not commenting on the merit of these rulings or giving the judge's opinion, and in fact is utterly divorced from his opinion really. The judge never said the "case wasn't entirely one-sided"; all this is a very brief summary of pre-trial litigation. The author of the article you are citing misunderstood what is actually in the judge's opinion and what isn't.

You are so caught up on this one line that you are ignoring what happened. Fair Fight filed a broad lawsuit. The lawsuit was eventually whittled down to 3 claims, all of which were rejected in court - you can read that in the POLITICO article. The wording that exists right now is misleading because it implies the litigation went a way that it did not. My proposed fix ("A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election, although some election laws were changed by the legislature while litigation was ongoing") more accurately resolves your concern - the "wins" Fair Fight achieved were entirely legislative responses, not judicial ones. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You’re spot on. The very idea that we should describe filing multiple lawsuits and losing each time as “wins and losses for both sides” is so incomprehensible I can barely believe the discussion needs to be had. Davefelmer (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the judge, quoted in multiple reliable secondary sources as being notable. Generalrelative (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So what? The actual verdict was that Fair Fight lost. When discussing the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, we didn’t document it as “wins and losses for both sides” based on Kavanaugh’s concurrence and because they didn’t mandate Constitutional Carry nationwide as the right wanted. We only note the verdict, not litigation before the final case or on the side. Just because a line from a judge is mentioned somewhere in the source doesn’t make it fair game for the lead. All these articles note primarily, first and in their headlines that fair fight and Abrams lost, not that it was a mixed result with wins for all. Davefelmer (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Some sources mention that specific quote, some don't. Many quote the judge like this: "Although Georgia's election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the Constitution nor the VRA (Voting Rights Act)". For example this article is written by Mark Niesse, the same AJC reporter who wrote the article Starship.paint brought into this discussion, and uses "not perfect" quote. Niesse doesn't mention "wins and losses" (except if embedding the whole 288-page ruling counts, and it doesn't). Now that you have completely removed the lawsuit from the lead, it's left unbalanced. This WaPo article calls the ruling "a blow to Fair Fight Action, the voting rights group founded by Stacey Abrams" in the first sentence. Politrukki (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

See my comment below at 15:52, 2 November 2022. Generalrelative (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BLPREMOVE applies here. The content in question is entirely about her organization, not Abrams personally, although it does tie into her complaints of a rigged election. The material is not libelous by any stretch of the imagination and doesn't fail any of the four tests, so I'm not sure why it's been used here other than to justify removing it over WP:EDITCON. Toa Nidhiki05 23:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The contention is that what you're seeking to add is an original interpretation or analysis of a source. That's WP:BLPREMOVE #2. Generalrelative (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not adding any original research. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm there's no original research in the content removed here, citing BLPREMOVE. It's bizarre that Generalrelative accused anyone, including themselves, of adding original research. Politrukki (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative has opened a thread at BLP over this. Figured I would notify myself as no notification has been given here. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So, the judge’s description in the final opinion “wins and losses for all parties” is dismissed (The judge is being courteous after a years-long trial.) and even described as implying something simply inaccurate - even though RS clearly quote the judge. Since this judge that is too courteous and his writing is too inaccurate, I think we can ignore the judge, and ignore RS also, there should be nothing in this article on his ruling because he may have been too courteous and his words are inaccurate. TL;DR - either take the judge and RS seriously, or don’t. starship.paint (exalt) 14:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please try to be serious. Toa Nidhiki05 made a serious proposal "A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election, although some election laws were changed by the legislature while litigation was ongoing". Do you have something against that? Politrukki (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Starship.paint is entirely within bounds here. Their comment makes clear (once again) that presenting a selective view of the court case as though it were one-sided would be a misrepresentation of the sources and a case of original analysis. Wherever we mention the court case, we need to mention that it wasn't one-sided –– along with the final outcome. It's pretty simple. Quoting the judge's pithy statement is an efficient way to do that, which is probably why we find so many reliable secondary sources doing the same. Generalrelative (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The above proposal is confusing, Politrukki. The latter fragment doesn’t seem to contrast well against the former, and it’s not a full explanation. Something else along the lines of: Fair Fight initiated a legal challenge against Georgia's election laws; some of the lawsuit's claims were resolved after the legislature changed election laws while litigation was ongoing, and for the other claims the federal judge ruled against Fair Fight. starship.paint (exalt) 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Looks good to me. Politrukki (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "some of the plaintiff's claims..." not "some of the lawsuit's..." SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Politrukki, that's an excellent proposal and I support it wholeheartedly. It accurately follows what reliable sources say about the case. I remain baffled some people here seem laser focused on one throwaway line from the judge in the preamble of a case, while ignoring the actual outcome of the case and what reliable sources like POLITICO actually say about it. The case was, in fact, one-sided. All counts that Fair Fight brought were rejected. It doesn't get more one-sided than that! Toa Nidhiki05 15:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Toa, it's literally your proposal. And continuing to argue that the case was one-side when you've been shown how the sources explicitly contradict you (once again: The judge who decided against Fair Fight on all counts wrote in his ruling that the case wasn’t entirely one-sided [13]) is at this point disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I would urge you to actually read and focus on more than a single line from a judge in the one part of the court filing that doesn't actually matter. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm done debating you now. There are only so many ways to reiterate that we go by what reliable sources say, not the original analysis of editors. Wikipedia's policies will win out here, as they always eventually do. Generalrelative (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Starship Paint. We should quote what RS say and what the judge says. A judge's position is de facto worthy of inclusion. "The judge is being courteous" is inserting POV editorializing. Andre🚐 15:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Another point which hasn't been discussed in depth so far: Does the lawsuit really belong in the lead of the Stacy Abrams bio rather than in the article on Fair Fight Action? If included in the paragraph on Abrams' claims about the 2018 election, as was the case, it could easily be misinterpreted as a rejoinder to her claims (whereas it was in fact a ruling on the constitutionality of the state's laws). I'm not objecting to including discussion of the lawsuit in the article body, but it's not at all clear to me that it belongs in the lead. Certainly not in the way it was previously framed. Generalrelative (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It provides needed context for her claims, which should not be regarded as fact in and of themselves, but Fair Fight is also an integral part of the Abrams campaign and her public life following the election, especially given recent reporting from Politico. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources say

• Associated Press - "Abrams’ Fair Fight Action organization filed the lawsuit along with Care in Action, a nonprofit that advocates for domestic workers. Several churches later joined as plaintiffs. It was originally extremely broad and called for a significant overhaul of Georgia’s election system. By the time it got to trial, the scope had narrowed significantly after some allegations were resolved by changes in state law and others were dismissed by the court."
• Axios - "She launched Fair Fight Action in 2018, a now influential, if sometimes divisive, voting policy presence in Georgia. It was among the loudest protest voices against the state's 2021 Republican-led voting policy overhaul and also challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's voting system after Abrams' loss, a lawsuit that a federal judge just threw out."
• New York Times - "U.S. District Court Judge Steven Jones ruled against all the claims brought by Fair Fight Action."
• POLITICO - "Fair Fight Action v. Raffensperger started as a sprawling case... more than two years after the case was filed, Judge Steve Jones narrowed its scope to three issues... But regarding the three remaining claims that made it to trial, the judge ruled in favor of the defendants on all counts."
• Georgia Recorder - "When the trial began this spring, the lawsuit’s scope had been significantly scaled back from when it was originally filed in 2018, focusing instead on how Georgia checks citizenship status, absentee ballot cancellation and voter maintenance list accuracy."
• TIME - "On Sept. 30, a federal judge rejected Abrams’ lawsuit stemming from the 2018 vote."

The "wins" Fair Fight got were, as I've said, out of court. The actual lawsuit ended in failure. Any wording that ignores this reality is simply doing a disservice to our readers. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's true that the wins were out of court. Nevertheless, out of court doesn't mean insignificant. The judge thought it was significant, and RS quoted him word-for-word on that, so RS think the judge's words are significant. [14][15][16] starship.paint (exalt) 08:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Andre🚐 15:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this still a debate about the lead or is this about the body? If it's about the body, "wins and losses" can, in my opinion, be included if it's in the proper context. But if my calculations are correct, three of the above sources[17][18][19] the quote and one attributes it to Abrams, who attributes it to the judge. Based on that, would you say that RS deem the quote insignificant? Politrukki (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue RSes clearly do not, given the brunt of the articles focuses on the fact Fair Fight lost as opposed to the one throwaway judge line from the preamble. Toa Nidhiki05 12:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Thanks to Masem at BLP, I think we have a proposal that should resolve everyone's issues:

Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. Abrams has said she has no empirical evidence, and news outlets and political science experts have found no verified evidence as of November 2019.

This does not vilify Abrams, but also notes there evidence has not bee found for her claims (and that she is open about acknowledging this), and leaves open room for evidence if some is ever found. Thoughts? Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to your characterization of the proposal, it incorporates many of the defects that have already been identified, documented, and rejected by numerous editors above. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Please explain them, then. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Nobody has to explain something so self-evident. Madame Necker (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

For a lede statement, it is an appropriate summary from what I'm reading above, with the more specific details (such as the lawsuit, the changes made post-lawsuit-filing rendering some of it moot, and the results of the lawsuit) are more body-level aspects. Masem (t) 15:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I can’t accept this proposal. I don’t mind a mention of “empirical evidence”, but there are two issues. 1) Her full position has to be reflected. She said [20] I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election. Unfortunately the latter sentence wasn’t quoted in BLPN, and I feel that has to be incorporated. (2) Her quote says “empirical evidence” of a higher number of votes for herself, but the proposed text seems to suggest empirical evidence of voter suppression. These are pretty close, but I don’t think that they are exactly the same. We should quote her properly. Abrams said in 2019 that she did not have empirical evidence that she would have received more votes, but nevertheless voiced doubts about the fairness of the election process. starship.paint (exalt) 16:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This gives undue weight to her opinion, which doesn't seem to be given much prominence by reliable sources that I can find. I support the proposal as presented. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Like starship.paint and SPECIFICO, I would not endorse Masem's proposal. I believe that the current wording (News outlets and political science experts have been unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result) is the version most in accordance with NPOV of those that have been proposed so far. Generalrelative (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Generalrelative et al. at this point Andre🚐 23:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the AE thread is dragging on and Abrams is being smeared as an election denier there. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems like you really want me removed from the conversation as soon as possible. What's the rush? That seems kind of rude, really. I do get the point about things dragging on, however - I might just start up an RfC with the two options here to finally resolve this, given we're at a deadlock here with no consensus eitehr way. Toa Nidhiki05 23:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would advise User:FormalDude to read WP:RFCEND, which they might be unfamiliar with. Toa Nidhiki05 02:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with how it points to WP:Closing discussions which explains the process for challenging the closure of an RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Read the part where it says involved editors may not close discussions. Politrukki (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Note: There is currently a report involving this discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Toa Nidhiki05. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Page protection?

procedural discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By my count there have been maybe dozen reverts in the last two days. Page protection might be needed. It's very clear there's no real agreement on what consensus is. Toa Nidhiki05 23:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC) I've already requested page protection for 1-week. If it's granted? that'll be seven days for all of you, to iron out something. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Much appreciated, GoodDay. Toa Nidhiki05 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC) The request was declined as it was preemptive and inappropriate. Andre🚐 15:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC) It was appropriate. But thankfully the edit-spats had (hopefully have) come to an end, by then. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Please contribute on content and stop the fiddling and fussing around the edges on the politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Political content disputes can become quite heated & so I prefer to stay on the outskirts. Seeing as the edit-spats have stopped, there's no need to make another page protection request. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Nobody's saying you have an obligation to participate. But your current actions -- calling for unneeded and unwanted RfC's, page protection, etc, and !votes without supporting reasons -- have not been constructive, as I'd hope you'd see from the reactions they've elicited. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC) The content dispute over Abrams, has moved to the BLPN board. This is good, as it has stopped the mini-edit war. Hope you all can iron out a solution. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC) You're not getting it. Article talk pages are not for you to post play-by-play commentary that adds nothing to the discussion. That's all. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC) I, for one, appreciate GoodDay's neutral, impartial, and removed engagement in these situations. I welcome his involvement in discussions here and in the future. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Me too. I don't see any call for an RFC. Am I missing something? Politrukki (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Refusal to concede 2018 gubernatorial election

Participants wanted this RFC closed. Anyone who wishes to open a 'new' RFC? are free to do so. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently, there is an extensive dispute ongoing regarding wording in the lead. Specifically, the dispute relates to mention of Stacey Abrams's refusal to concede the 2018 election; this has involved a wide number of editors, and no clear consensus has been reached on wording. Several proposals have been created during this discussion, which I've opened to finally resolve the issue. Toa Nidhiki05 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Options Option 1: Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. News outlets and political science experts have been unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result. Option 2: Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. Abrams has said she has no empirical evidence, and news outlets and political science experts have found no verified evidence as of November 2019. Option 3: Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Note: I've added an additional citation to the status quo version (Option 1): Generalrelative (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) References Tagging participants Tagging the following users who have engaged in discussion here or at the BLP noticeboard: Generalrelative, Muboshgu, SPECIFICO, Endwise, GoodDay, Politrukki, Bill Williams, Davefelmer, Starship.paint, Andrevan, Viriditas, Mr Ernie, Viriditas, Rhododendrites, Animalparty, Arkon, and Masem Comments Support Option 2 Provides the best balance of reliable sourcing, including both Abrams's own words and the research of fact checkers and analysts without overly vilifying Abrams, while also not potentially misleading readers into thinking there is empirical evidence to back Abrams's claims. Toa Nidhiki05 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Comment - I'm going to wait until after the mid-term elections, before deciding which is the best option. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Oppose Option 2 due to the Abrams has said she has no empirical evidence [of voter suppression] being potentially misleading. As I have already said above, the actual quote by Abrams [21] is I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election. I believe that this is slightly different and nuanced, thus Option 2 is not accurate enough. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC) There are further problems with Option 2, it says have found no verified evidence [of voter suppression], but the sources are more nuanced, AJC: no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election, Politifact - it isn’t possible to prove if any election law or policy in Georgia cost Abrams [...] "... the evidence is missing" [...] "... it’s difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting", WaPo - where you land depends on how you view the wide range of pertinent evidence. Due to this, Option 1 and Option 3 are better. starship.paint (exalt) 02:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Oppose Option 2 Don't really like any of these options and I am not sure if this is a neutral selection, but Option 1 seems the least objectionable of these, since we know voter suppression likely does affect the results[22][23][24] Andre🚐 01:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Comment (Summoned by bot) – holding my !vote per WP:NODEADLINE until after the election. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Options 1 and 3 and weakly oppose option 2. While most of this discussion serves as pretty clear-cut evidence of the left-wing political bias on Wikipedia, option 2 is the least biased of the 3. The wording is far from neutral, though. 174.105.195.98 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Support Option 1 (strongly oppose Option 2). There doesn’t seem to be much controversy over whether Kemp made decisions as Secretary of State aimed at making it harder for Democratic-leaning populations to vote, only whether his efforts were sufficient to have tipped the election. All of the five sources cited to support the status quo sentence in Option 1, with the exception of the first, say essentially the same thing. And that first source, which notes that no evidence of systematic irregularities had yet emerged, was published while the race was still too close to call. Option 2 appears to suggest that experts see no evidence that Kemp behaved in this way, which is flatly false. What the experts say is that there is no evidence for the stronger claim that suppression was sufficient to have tipped the election. Here are some quotes: Amy Sherman, "No proof voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams from governorship, as Democrats said in Atlanta debate" PolitiFact: Kemp made some controversial decisions that probably hurt Democrats overall, but it’s difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting, Daniel P. Tokaji, who teaches election law at Ohio State University, told PolitiFact. "The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp," he said. Amy Sherman, "Kamala Harris says voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum out of office. Really?" PolitiFact: includes the same quote: While Kemp made some controversial decisions that probably hurt Democrats overall, it is difficult to determine exactly how many people were prevented from voting, said Daniel P. Tokaji, who teaches election law at Ohio State University. "The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp," he said. Glenn Kessler, "Did racially motivated voter suppression thwart Stacey Abrams?" The Washington Post: The weeks leading up to the election were dominated by questions of voter suppression, in part because of the unusual circumstance that Kemp refused to recuse himself from overseeing the election, so his every move was viewed with suspicion by the Abrams camp. In the closing days of the race, Kemp without evidence accused the Democrats of cybercrimes, apparently to distract from his office’s own voter-registration problems. [...] Hasen, the UC Irvine expert, said the practices used under Kemp raise serious questions even if one cannot prove they affected the election outcome. “There is no question that Georgia in general and Brian Kemp in particular took steps to make it harder for people to register and vote, and that those people tended to skew Democratic,” Hasen said. “I have seen no good social science evidence that efforts to make it harder to register and vote were responsible for Kemp’s victory over Abrams in the Georgia gubernatorial race. That seems to me to be beside the point: The question is whether Georgia had a good reason to put these suppressive measures in place, and for the most part, the state did not have good reasons.” Richard Hasen, Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy: As Ari Berman put it, "We don't know – and may never know – how many people were disenfranchised or dissuaded from voting in the state. But it's clear that Kemp did everything in his power to put in place restrictive voting policies that would help his candidacy and hurt his opponent, all while overseeing his own election." Emphasis added of course. Should be clear, I think, from these quotes that it's simply unknown whether Georgia's voting irregularities during the 2018 election –– which appear to have been the result of policy changes deliberately targeted at reducing the ability of Democratic-leaning populations to vote –– were sufficient to tip the results. Should Abrams have been more circumspect in how she spoke about the election in retrospect? Most sources appear to agree: yes. But they also tend to agree that her concerns about voter suppression were based in reality. Generalrelative (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Support Option 1 - (Summoned by bot) (also participated in the BLPN thread, but the above pings didn't work FYI). The distinction the sources make is between (a) a variety of election-related changes/processes that seem like they would hurt Abrams and (b) the ability to prove that those changes made a quantitative difference. As for number 2: she said in that one source that she is basing her arguments on empirical evidence for (a), but doesn't have empirical evidence for (b), but the proposer (now topic banned) has cherrypicked the second alone. Three seems intended to avoid conflict, but at the expense of clarity. Many sources have written about her claims, so there's no need to end with an accusation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Back-and-forth On a separate note: I noticed this RFC has been closed, re-opened, re-closed, re-opened, etc etc. I'm going to send out pings to those who've already participated in it. They deserve to know whether or not their input may be disregarded, closed, etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC) @174.105.195.98:, @Andrevan:, @Starship.paint:, @Mathglot:, perhaps you all can decide. Should the RFC be closed or not? GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Please don't take my participation in the RFC as a desire to keep it open. I do think it could be closed and reopened with a different set of options or perhaps just continue the discussion. Andre🚐 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Same here. If SPECIFICO had simply re-closed without removing my comments (along with those of Mathglot and the IP) I wouldn't have reverted. Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC) We'll likely not hear from the IP again, but Mathglot & Starship.paint needed to be pinged. I think we all can agree, it's best to wait until after the 2022 gubernatorial election is held, before continuing (if needed) the discussion-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC) GoodDay, maybe you would then do the honor of closing the RfC? You've been observing the conversation but so far appear to be uninvolved in advocating for either side. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC) I will do so, if I've consent from you, Andrevan, Starship.paint & Mathglot. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC) No objection Andre🚐 05:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Awesome, thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: - no objection. starship.paint (exalt) 07:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Mathgot is aware, but hasn't chimed in, so I'll take that as consent. Leaving a ping for @Rhododendrites:, as well. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ABRAMS didn't say it, her CAMPAIGN MANAGER did. (Someone will need to edit this.)

Under 2018 Gubernatorial Campaign: "Kemp blamed Abrams for the cancellation, saying she was unwilling to reschedule it. Abrams responded, 'We refuse to callously take Georgians for granted and cancel on them. Just because Brian Kemp breaks his promises doesn't mean anyone else should.'" But if we check the source (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/us/politics/kemp-trump-abrams.html), we see it should read that ABRAMS didn't say it, her campaign manager, Lauren Groh-Wargo, said it in a statement. I can't fix this, someone else will have to. Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads-up. RAN1 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Voter registration investigation by Kemp?

So in Feb 2021 she and Warnock were put under investigation by Kemp for voter registration issues. I can't find any update on this? Is this already mentioned on the page but have I missed it? Apeholder (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Apeholder (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Non-fiction Book

There is a book listed on my Amazon Kindle that says it is written by her titled "Rogue Justice". It also notes her book titled "While Justice Sleeps". 2601:344:4280:2C90:8D8A:53F2:45CB:A919 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of "Voter Suppression"

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources state that there is no evidence that "voter suppression affected the outcome of the election" yet the lead presents the disingenuous view that most sources view this as something that is up to debate or can never be known. It's one of the basic rules of science that a person presenting a claim needs to present evidence for it, you can't just claim there is an infinitesimally small teapot orbiting somewhere out in space because nobody can prove you wrong. All but one source cited in this article states that no evidence has been presented to support the claim that voter suppression affected the outcome, and the only other source added to the lead that says it can never be known is just quoting one person who claimed this, and this source isn't even in the body of this article. That neither summarizes nor places due weight on what the majority of sources express. Bill Williams 16:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not consistent with my understanding of what the balance of reliable sources say. Note also that the existing language was the product of extensive discussion and compromise in the above discussion. Finally, it is odd to argue that the balance of reliable sources do not support the current language while also deleting an undeniably reliable source by subject-matter expert Richard L. Hasen, as you just did: [25]. In that edit summary you state it is not up to "news outlets and political scientists" to determine anything. What? Wikipedia is based on such sources, not the original analysis of editors. Generalrelative (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's your original analysis to manufacture a sentence claiming that "news outlets and political scientists have been unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result." No source claims this, and the one source that I removed which stated some vague "we" as never being able to know what the result was not in the body so I removed it because the lead is a summary of the body, not cherrypicking a random source that is nowhere in the body to support a claim in the lead. Every single other source states some derivation of "there is no evidence" that voter suppression affected the result. Bill Williams 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The first source [26] states "However, no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams," the second source [27] states "No proof voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams from governorship, as Democrats said in Atlanta debate," while both the third and fourth sources state that there is no evidence that voter suppression affected the election results, and that without any evidence it is impossible to determine if it did. It is inherent that you can never make a definitive conclusion on anything, but there has been no evidence that voter suppression affected the result and there continues to be no evidence that it did, hence it is not that we are "have been unable to determine" but that it is impossible to determine that it affected the result because there is zero evidence that it did. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim and it is absurd to pretend in the lead of this article like there is any shred of evidence that voter suppression affected the result, when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that there has not been any evidence presented. Bill Williams 17:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

An additional source [28] states that "While Abrams has maintained the 2018 gubernatorial election was unfair and tainted by voter suppression, there’s no empirical evidence that now-Gov. Kemp stole that election from her," which is another way of stating that there is no evidence that voter suppression affected the result of the election. There are numerous claims that cannot be proven true or false, but it is our job to present the fact that there is no evidence to prove those claims rather than vaguely state that people "have been unable to determine" if they are true or false. Bill Williams 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

All I'll say at the moment is that I find your arguments unconvincing. Your claim that the Hasen source is not discussed in the body is easily refuted. It's ref 58 and 82, quoted a couple times in the the "2018 gubernatorial campaign" subsection. Perhaps the refs should be consolidated, but that's no excuse for not hitting control+F before alleging that the source doesn't appear in the body. In any case, I'm not interested in getting into another protracted argument over this issue. I'm satisfied that the previous discussion resolved things well enough. Let's see if others care to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The previous discussion resolved nothing, and the current lead is a false balance of sources by using a single source to pretend like five others don't exist. Claiming that nobody can determine what happened is a far more misleading view than stating the fact that there is zero evidence "voter suppression" affected anything. Abrams claimed the election was stolen and it's absurd for the lead of this article to pretend like her view was backed by any shred of evidence. I think I'll open an RfC on the issue. Bill Williams 12:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I missed the part where you at least acknowledge that you were wrong. And jumping right into an RfC before even hearing a third opinion would be highly improper per WP:RFCBEFORE. Generalrelative (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong, but thanks for the passive aggressive remark. The source is utilized in the body, sure, but the claim that "News outlets and political science experts have been unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result" is never backed up by the source in the body- the later citations that you mention as the same source are people claiming Kemp was a bad Secretary of State, they never claim that his actions affected the result. I missed the part where you showed any evidence that "voter suppression" changed the election result, when every reliable source says there is no evidence of such. And I have gotten far more than three opinions, with the previous discussion involving multiple editors and resulting in no consensus. It would be highly improper to just ignore the issue entirety. Bill Williams 13:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Umm, I can read. And so can anyone else who stumbles on this conversation. Above you stated the one source that I removed ... was not in the body so I removed it because the lead is a summary of the body, not cherrypicking a random source that is nowhere in the body to support a claim in the lead. I showed you that you were wrong about this: the source was used (and discussed) several times in the article body. And now you're saying I wasn't wrong, but thanks for the passive aggressive remark. I stopped reading your comment there. Good luck persuading others. Generalrelative (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is used in the body for a completely different claim, so while you were technically correct that it is in the body, calling me wrong didn't change the fact that there is nothing in the body stating that some reliable sources believe "voter suppression affected the result," while the lead continues to claim that we are all unable to know. There is a difference between a source being in the lead and the body, and the content in the body matching the lead, which is currently not the case. The lead states that people are unable to determine if voter suppression affected the result, but the reliable sources for the claim all state that there is no evidence for the claim, while a single one states that we may never know, but that specific claim is never in the body of this Wikipedia article. Bill Williams 17:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Bill Williams, calling established consensus "disingenuous" is a non-starter. Not likely to get your views the attention you feel they deserve. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Except there is no established consensus, there was a disagreement over the content and it was never resolved, but editors lost interest and this is what remained, that doesn't somehow mean what is currently there was consensus, and there should be an RfC on the matter to determine what the consensus actually is. Bill Williams 22:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I just reviewed over the previous discussion and there was absolutely not an overall consensus for the current wording, just two editors agreeing to it while another said the discussion was not over, but then people got distracted by the focus on her refusal to concede the 2018 election. Since the wording over her refusal to concede in 2018 was resolved, I think it's time to focus back on the wording over the lack of evidence of "voter suppression." I objected to the current wording along with four other editors at the time, and your only response to me was to randomly say "Just like with Trump, Kari Lake, Mastriano, and Josh Hawley -- right, Bill? Same thing?" as if that had anything to do with the discussion. Since you had mentioned it, I think those Republicans were pathetic for making claims were completely unsubstantiated, while Stacey Abrams has also failed to present a single shred of evidence that "voter suppression" affected the election results. Hence we clearly need an RfC (which was mentioned before the discussion got distracted in the past) to change the current wording, because there was no overall consensus for it to ever be there. Bill Williams 23:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with @Bill Williams here. As far as I can tell, no reliable sources have presented evidence to support Abrams' claims that the election was "rigged", "stolen", et cetera. I think we need to be clear about this. To me, it appears misleading to be so vague and non-committal about this in the opening section. I'm sure reasonable editors would oppose such wishy-washy language on, say, Donald Trump's page. Living in a time as we do, where election denialism is an existential threat to some democracies, we shouldn't equivocate or give undue weight to the idea that Abrams' election was stolen. Pecopteris (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As discussed numerous times above, we're following what the sources say here. This case is substantially different from that of Donald Trump. Generalrelative (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, it certainly is substantially different along multiple dimensions. I don't mean to imply that the case is identical to Donald Trump. Obviously, there are many other aggravating factors in the Trump case, some of which is currently under criminal investigation. I'm no defender of his, to be clear.

While I agree with you enthusiastically that we should "follow what the sources say", I must disagree that this has actually taken place.

in both cases (Trump/Abrams), the following facts are the same:

1) In both cases, the subject (Trump/Abrams) tried to get elected to a post in the U.S. government.

2) In both cases, the subject lost the election, according to all election officials and essentially all reliable sources.

3) In both cases, the subject explicitly and persistently called the election "rigged" and "stolen", despite providing no evidence.

4) In both cases, only a smattering of fringe voices made any suggestion of impropriety in the election, and these fringe voices brought no evidence to the table of fraud.

I think it's strange, and a bit deceptive, to limit the wording to "voter suppression" instead of addressing Abrams' very bold claims of "rigging" and "stealing". Those are the really explosive, and frankly, dangerous claims. We should be very clear to the reader - Stacey Abrams denied the results of an election, and called the election "rigged" and "stolen" - in absolute contradiction of all election officials, courts, and basically all of the "reliable sources", none of which have found any evidence of fraud or criminality. In fact, if any "reliable source" did give credence to the idea that the election was "stolen" from Stacey Abrams, I'd say we should be questioning the reliability of that source.

I think that three relevant policies here would be WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:FRINGE. It's deceptive to suggest that the certitude and legitimacy of Stacey Abrams' defeat is in doubt in any way. She lost the election, and there was no "rigging" or "stealing". All of the reliable sources support that assertion. I think we have a responsibility as Wikipedians AND as civic participants to avoid equivocating on this issue, even if our knee-jerk reaction might be "I don't want to invite comparisons to Trump".

We're getting really damn close to living in a time where everyone denies every election, and eventually, nobody will trust or respect any election outcome. Once that happens, we'll long for the days when we had the safety and freedom to sit on our computer and debate the wording of a Wikipedia article. As the most-read reference work on Earth, I think we can do something significant to combat this - namely, by not providing a false sense of balance on these clear-cut matters, and by not trying to use linguistic tricks to shield Stacey Abrams from the consequences of her sickening decision to deny a legitimate election, even if she might be a lovely lady in every other regard.

I look forward to your response and, perhaps, a rebuttal. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thoughtful and civil post. I do, however, think that all of your points have been addressed in the previous discussion. The substantive allegation of voter suppression was never actually refuted, due to the highly irregular actions of then-Attorney General Brian Kemp not to recuse himself from making impactful decisions affecting Georgians' ability to vote in the election while himself standing as a candidate. This is all discussed in reliable sources which are cited in the article body, e.g. Richard L. Hasen's Election Meltdown (Yale University Press, 2020), which states that We don't know – and may never know – how many people were disenfranchised or dissuaded from voting in the state. But it's clear that Kemp did everything in his power to put in place restrictive voting policies that would help his candidacy and hurt his opponent, all while overseeing his own election. The article does not exist to call out Abrams for using strong language to describe Kemp's actions, which would run afoul of WP:RGW. It just needs to follow what the reliable sources say according to WP:DUE weight, and the existing lead seems to do an adequate job of that. Generalrelative (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Perennial Candidate" is innacurate and should be deleted

This is not a correct use of the term, which means "A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for public office without a reasonable chance of winning. The term is the opposite of an incumbent politician who repeatedly defends their seat successfully. In the U.S., perennial candidates are usually affiliated with third party politics." (Wikipedia)

The term is often used in the pejorative and I suspect this is the case here. In any event, the label is not an accurate description of the subject. JimmyZuma (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for spotting that. I've removed it. Generalrelative (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google search turned up at least four sources that have applied this term to Abrams:

https://hudson.house.gov/media/enewsletters/unmask-our-kids

https://newsouthpolitics.com/2022/09/20/stacey-abrams-still-trails-kemp-even-in-ajc-poll/

https://san.com/opinions/georgias-election-laws-falsely-accused-of-voter-suppression/

https://www.commentary.org/noah-rothman/where-trumps-endorsement-won-republicans-are-losing/

I think the label merits inclusion. Pecopteris (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider those to be high quality sources? Enough to make an unattributed statement in Wikivoice? Generalrelative (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not quite enough for an unattributed Wikivoice statement in the first sentence. That's a bridge too far, even if they were high-quality sources and we could use Wikivoice, it wouldn't be desirable to start the article with such a tone. My view is that we have overcorrected here. We can't completely decline to include it merely because "the term is often used in the pejorative" or "the label is not an accurate description of the subject". I don't see how those arguments pass muster. Pecopteris (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

But the text that I removed as suggested above simply called her a perennial candidate in Wikivoice. Are you suggesting that we include new language like According to X, Y, and Z, Abrams is a "perennial candidate"? I'm not convinced that that adds any encyclopedic value to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Rouge Justice

Abrams's second novel published in her name (second in the Avery Keene series) needs to be added in the book section of her page and also on the While Justice Sleeps page. 173.68.86.145 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)