Talk:Susan Collins/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verifiability of CAFTA edits

Note the statement above: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". See also Verifiability: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Statements about legislators' motivations and back room dealings, particularly on the day before an election, need reliable sources. Muckracker, is there a reliable newspaper article that documents these allegations? - RamseyK 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Senate votes

I have included a new section on Senator Collins' votes that were not represented in the main Senate section. It seemed that the article reads like a campaign flier, without mentioning other very important votes. It begs the question what the neutrality of the article is. The section on other votes may need to be included into a different section if the "Senate" section grows into something more organized.

Otherwise, I believe this new section is appropriate. It is very well sourced, and I have attempted to remove any POV to keep the section neutral. H acton (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Someone posted to the Language Reference Desk (not really the right place, of course) a request for clarification of the two paragraphs that talk about Collins's vote regarding cloture and habeas corpus. It looks pretty unclear to me too, so I've added a copyedit tag to it. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Collins' speech regarding Christmas Day Bomber

The statement regarding Collins' speech about the Christmas Day Bomber is misplaced (wrong section) and unsourced. This might be suitable for a "Controversies" section, but the information would need to be NPOV and properly sourced.

Note the statement above: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". See also Verifiability: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

I am removing the statement. -- Later... OK. Looks like another user has beaten me to it.AlanK (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Heritage

Collins is an Irish name and is her maiden name, but I heard that she is also part French and part Native American, does anybody know?

Also, the 'early life' section needs some bio on her childhood and her parents (What did they do? What was their heritage?).

I mean all this in a positive sense, I just think a good article would include more info on her formative years, early experience and influences etc...

Really, the 'Early Life' section should be a separate section and not just one single sentence.

69.171.160.54 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a family tree of Collins here. It shows no recent foreign-born ancestors (except for her mother, who was born in Colombia, but to American parents). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 208.105.170.199

Since this is an upcoming election, editing a public figure's entry can be extra sensitive. I have edited the laundry list of names to preserve the neutrality and, more importantly, the coherence, of the article, not to mention keeping with Wikipedia standards. I didn't think there was a need to cut and paste the names of other Senators voting for the bill, unless the figures voting were exceptional or notable. H acton (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments on the BLP noticeboard, I cleaned up the section so as not to read like a disparagement of her voting record. I took the liberty of removing the NPOV tag afterwards (which I thought was appropriately added at the time). Feel free to read, but then also elaborate on what the concerns are.

My current concern of the section is about the amendment regarding contractor fraud. It is an amendment to what? Seems like that may be cherry picked so as to criticize her vote, esp. with the quoted language. But as I did not know what the main bill is, I left it in. Clarifications welcome. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Collins2008.com

Cybersquatting domains are not useful external links. Apart from not being in the category of things to link to, cybersquatting domains looking to be sold are expressly in the list of things not to link to. I don't see what kind of value that adds to the article, so I've removed it again. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hates internet freedom

Perhaps something could be mentioned about this news piece explaining that she's attempting to emulate Egypt's shutting off of the internet in their country. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 14:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Is there a reason why her signature was removed from the infobox? Most other senators have their signatures displayed in their infoboxes. (This is an example of why providing an edit summary is so helpful for other editors.) Thanks, BMRR (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

neurological problems?

Some have observed that her manner of speech is a noticeably slower than normal and wavers considerably. Does she have any known neurological or emotional problems? Matt2h (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

According to her staffers, "that's just how she talks" and is not indicative of a medical condition. Source: "For Susan Collins, persistence, work ethic are keys to success" by Martha Sherrill, special to the Washington Post, 7 May 2011, via the Portland Press Herald. –BMRR (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

She also seems to shake when she speaks, a bit like Michael J. Fox, but not as bad. Does she have the same condition as him, but in much milder form? --Westwind273 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Colombian?

Does Sen. Collins' mother being born in Colombia make Sen. Collins "of Colombian descent"? Her mother's parents were American, not Colombian. I am not aware of a source where Sen. Collins has claimed she is Colombian. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you that she should not be listed as Colombian. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because her mothers parents were American doesn't mean their daughter cannot be Colombian, as if my mother was born in Mexico to American parents she would be Mexican and I would be of Mexican descent. Just because she is white does not mean she is not of Hispanic descent, look at the article White Hispanic and Latino Americans. On her article it says she is of Irish descent because her ancestors a long time ago were from there, so since her mother was born in Colombia it therefore makes her of Colombian descent. 94.194.79.45 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between being ethnic Colombian and simply being born there; in other words a difference between race and nationality. I presume Collins has Irish in her because her ancestors originated from Ireland and were not simply in Ireland when they were born. That isn't the case with Colombia(her parents just happened to be in Colombia and are not ethnic Colombian or hispanic). It's perfectly fine to state where her relatives might have been born, but we shouldn't suggest she has a racial makeup that she doesn't. If there was a category titled "Politicians with relatives born in Colombia" or something like that which doesn't suggest her race I would not object. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As a further example, her colleague Ted Cruz was born in Canada only because his parents happened to be there at the time; he rejects his "Canadian" ancestry and citizenship and does not claim to be of "Canadian" ancestry(and is not categorized as of Canadian descent). 331dot (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So if you are born in the USA, and your parents are Indian, does that mean you are not American, just because your parents weren't from that country. Like I said before if you were born in Mexico to American parents, you are still Mexican. What you just said is that there is a difference between ethnic Colombians and people who were born there, so does that mean white people can't be Colombian? If a white person is born in Zimbabwe does that mean he is not African because he isn't black and is not an 'ethnic Zimbabwean?', no it means he he is a Zimbabwean and his children will therefore be of Zimbabwean regardless of where they move to! Ted Cruz can reject his ancestry all he wants but he is still Canadian and of Canadian descent. That is how genealogy works! 94.194.79.45 (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You are still confusing race and nationality. Genealogy isn't relevant to nationality. Being born in a nation doesn't mean you acquire the race and genes of that nation, even if you acquire its citizenship. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

committee assignments

Collins is not on either the Armed Services or Homeland Security committees. She is on the Select Committee on Intelligence, Appropriations and Special Aging Committees. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Susan Collins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100308100033/http://www.susancollins.com:80/about-susan-collins to http://www.susancollins.com/about-susan-collins

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917225045/http://maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/1994g/gen94ga.htm to http://maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/1994g/gen94ga.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2010/12/18/senate-passes-dont-ask-sends-repeal-to-obama/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hot mic

So lots of material here [1], thinking about how/if to introduce this material to the page neutrally. I'm leaning toward one or two sentences, such as "Collins was recorded on a hot mic referring to Congressman Farenthold as "fat" and "so unattractive" in a conversation with Democratic Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed. The conversation also contained comments regarding Farenthold's challenge of a duel posed to Collins." Thoughts? Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start to me. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems trivial to me. I wouldn't include it here. It might be relevant on Farenthold's page. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. Probably a bit recent. Apparently she apologized now so I guess we'll see if anything else comes from it. Source also says that Reed said "he's crazy," apparently referring to Trump, so maybe that's something. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Susan Collins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807151708/http://www.kjonline.com/Snowe-Collins-support-repeal-of-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell.html to http://www.kjonline.com/Snowe-Collins-support-repeal-of-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151027055830/http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281?ref=politics to http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281?ref=politics
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=a32aba11-4443-4577-b9a5-3b2ea2c2f826&Month=5&Year=2008

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Poorly sourced content

This edit removes content which is contentious and unsourced.

This edit removes content which is currently sourced to senate.gov and which should have secondary sourcing to indicate the significance of the votes.

This edit removes content which is redundant with content in the Notable Legislation section.CFredkin (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion by CFredkin; the first edit is not cited at all, even if true. The second is only cited to Senate.gov and needs other sources to indicate the notability of the votes(otherwise her entire Senate voting record could be posted, which is extensive as she as a policy never misses a vote). The third is, as CFredkin said, redundant. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you were concerned with the sourcing, then you would remove all content sourced in that manner. This you have not done; you only removed content that would seem unfavorable to a conservative. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are interested in POV pushing, and so your edits will be reverted unless you can come up with a better explanation. 59.97.32.186 (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Threatening an edit war is not the answer to your issue. Try concentrating on the legitimate issues raised instead. No one is interested in "POV pushing"(interesting that we are accused of favoring conservatives when most conservatives find Wikipedia too liberal) but claims need appropriate sourcing. I'm sure you could find at least one source for the RINO claim(especially related to when she voted not to remove Pres. Clinton from office) if you looked for it. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone wrote a bunch of cat puke having to do with a ying-yang of polls results. I have no idea why that was shoved in there. Firstly polls are cat puke. Can we agree on that? They have been completely discredited after the polls said Donald Trump had no chance against the Clintons and then Trump beat them soundly in the Electoral College so that crap has to be pulled out. Secondly there is speculation that her going down in these dubious polls was the result of her voting to confirm a supreme court justice of her own party. Nobody believed the shit being hurled at the guy so that can't be it. If anything she is going down in the polls because she sides to much with the Democrat Party. Its her base that is likely turning against her, not the Democrat Party which supported its own nominee.--2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:61C7:467F:97A5:D503 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation vote and consequences

On 2/1/17, Collins and Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, after having forwarded the controversial nomination of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary to the Senate floor, both voted against her confirmation. Either could have stopped the process in committee. That left Vice President Michael Pence to cast the deciding vote for confirmation, a first in Senate history. This edit supplies the requested citation and supports the reversion of the original reversion. Activist (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

We've been down this road before, and an IP editor is trying to remove well-sourced, objective info. Activist (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

AMEND INFO BOX for all office holders

Info boxes should include the term of office (length), the date of the most recent election or appointment, and the date of the next election. Beadmatrix (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beadmatrix: As your suggestion involves an infobox that appears on literally over 120,000 articles, the proper place to make your suggestion would be Template talk:Infobox officeholder. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Article quality

[--JohnS3003 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Discussion: This article contains multiple spelling and syntax errors, which tend to discredit either the subject-individual or the authors of the article or both.]

"Donors" section

Why do we have this section? I don't think we generally include this information on articles about politicians. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• That does seem out of place in her biography. Natureium (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Time for a fork?

This Susan Collins article is more than 200,000 bytes, with more being added all the time - 57,000 bytes added in June alone. The article is crammed with every bill she introduced, even bills that never went anywhere, and in many cases how she voted on a particular bill. This is overkill. See WP:SIZERULE.

A typical senator’s article (non-leadership, non-presidential candidate) is less than 100,000 bytes. Some contemporaries of hers with comparable tenures:

• Dianne Feinstein has 83,000 bytes.
• Lisa Murkowski has 116,000 bytes.
• Patty Murray has 58,000 bytes.
• Her colleague Angus King has 74,000 bytes.
• Her article is almost as big as Bernie Sanders, who has 223,357 bytes, but he has run for president multiple times.

We could trim the excess, but I suggest we emulate Amy Klobuchar and break out a separate article Political positions of Susan Collins. Klobuchar’s “political positions” article has 114,000 bytes and her parent article has 58,000. That’s more like it.

@Informant16: What do you think about this idea? I'm asking you because you have done most of the recent adding - and not just here, at many other articles also. Your diligence is to be commended, but maybe it’s time for a fork. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• It is also possible that much information could be condensed or better summarized. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• The article is over 240kb, but splitting is based on readable prose size. Currently, the article is 114497 characters (18034 words) of "readable prose", which by wP:SPLITTING, would suggest the need for a split. But, I agree with 331dot. The issue with this page is that Informant16 has been adding, adding, adding, and nobody else has trimmed anything. We should look to prune this article before we consider splitting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, I had always intended on eventually splitting it. I wanted to prepare a summary for the main page ahead of doing that though. I thank you for the compliment of my additions and for showing enough restraint to ask my opinion before doing anything. Muboshgu made it sound like I had committed some kind of sin by contributing. "adding, adding, adding" OH NOES! Informant16 19 July 2019

@Informant16:, it wasn't my intention to suggest that. I just meant that that's how the page has reached a size that makes the page less readable. I think there's too much on those bills that went nowhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Informant16,I don't want to hurt your feelings but I also get concerned about some of your additions to the various articles that you work on. It does seem to just go on and on and I have to wonder where it will stop. I have felt many times that you should cut back your additions to only very short informational comments letting the reader check the sources where they are interested in more information. Or perhaps you could check your own work every few months and cut back in places that seem to need it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:, it's somewhat amusing you wrote that since it reminds me of when I edited the Ron Wyden page and had about 15,000 bytes worth of content revoked by a user who seemed to only allow additions that were bills. Stuff like letters, public statements, etc apparently didn't apply there. I can't win with this website. What my long term goal for the article was for something similar to the Rand Paul page where the Senate career is mostly filled with bills that became law and public statements of dissent from her own party. The adding of the bills was fully with the knowledge that I'd eventually split it. @Gandydancer:, I'd delete all my contributions over the period of the last eight years if I could but that would get me banned. "I don't want to hurt your feelings as I encourage you to stop editing." I apologize for being productive. I will try to be less productive in the future. Informant16 19 July 2019

I think you did an excellent job with the split and the summary. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

If you can't tolerate constructive criticism, you're going to have problems in real life as well as here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the reason why this article is larger than a usual senator is because Collins is a RINO. She is not a loyal Republican. She is a political weather-vane, first going this way and then that way. Therefore there is more to write about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:61C7:467F:97A5:D503 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Thankfully, some of the longest sections, like political positions, have been condensed and "main articles" have been made to preserve information that is informative and interesting without bogging down this article that should be more of a summary. The social issues section was also getting too long with very specific focuses on individual federal judges out of the thousands on whom she had to take a vote or position. Since we cannot quote every nominee's positions on diverse issues, we should not single out one vote and make it seem as though that is her position (e.g. quoting an anti-abortion nominee as if that is her position). We especially cannot do that without quoting every pro-abortion rights nominee for whom she had voted. John K. Busch is not any more important a vote to describe her positions than the many others, some who were considered pro-life choices and others considered pro-choice choices.SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"John K. Busch is not any more important a vote to describe her positions than the many others, some who were considered pro-life choices and others considered pro-choice choices." RS disagree. If a person murders someone, we don't scrub it from their Wikipedia page with "it's unfair that we don't mention everyone they didn't murder". One aspect is notable, the other aspect is not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss that here in Talk. Any vote on a federal judge is significant, but there is a critical piece that we have to think about when including that information in a summary. Is it summary material? A vote on one federal judge, i.e. John K Busch, does not summarize nor provide an example of Susan Collins' positions on social issues. Since first being sworn into the Senate in 1997, she has voted on hundreds of judges in each presidential administration. Some judges had a record of being pro-choice, others of being pro-life. Some did not have any comments about that or other issues. Wikipedia has rules that articles must be balanced. Focusing on one judge gives a very small partial picture of her record on judges. Wikipedia also has rules that too much space cannot be given to media reports just because a report was popular as a current event. While John K Busch was certainly a topic in 2017, that vote is not generally reflective of her social positions enough to take up space in a summary. There are plenty of other noteworthy reports dating back to 1997 about her votes on judges. And, the article section already acknowledges that NARAL Pro-Choice America believes she voted for 32 anti-abortin judges. That shows a bigger picture, and, the information presents a balanced picture as it also mentions that she has voted for 90% of Democratic nominees too.

Secondly, there is the main article now for Senator Collins' political positions. That article has a section for the judiciary and already mentions the nomination of Judge Busch. That article and its section on the Judiciary also helpfully mentions her votes against some nominees perceived as anti-abortion as well as judges who had records perceived as being pro-choice. That main article was created precisely because this one had become way too long with specific bills and specific nominations taking up too much space. Now, there is the main article and this article can have a summary. It also directs readers interested in more specific detail to the main article.SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

To give some context, Senator Collins has voted for more than 100 of President Trump's nominees, and many of them had controversial elements on multiple issues. Senator Collins also voted for many of President Obama's more than 300 judges. I appreciate the point that it was in the news, but so were others, and what I think is the most important reason for keeping this page as a summary is that there is the main article and those more specific judges are in there.SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What makes these judges notable is that she explicitly says she's voting for judges who have said they will respect Roe v Wade, yet whose records are completely contrary to respecting Roe v Wade. That is why they're a big thing, and that is why much of the focus during confirmation hearings is on her. That is how abortion rights in the US will get rolled back: through the judiciary, and she has a great hand in making that more or less likely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "these judges" are notable. One judge and one judge's comments, not even her comments, should not take up such space. I do appreciate how you have also edited the article to make it more condensed. I think that is what is needed as well since there is now a Political Positions Page where more information, detail, and issues can be recorded/explained. I will say that I am concerned there is a bias against the Senator in some of your edit explanations. I am concerned there is an ideological drive to depict her as more conservative than she is. I have very few qualms with the content of most of your edits, but the language in the explanations could be more objective and neutral. Instead of referring to her votes as "pointless" for example, perhaps you can make the case for why it should deleted or moved. Basically, I think we could each be doing a good job working together to build consensus edits, and, yet, derisive or demeaning language can undercut that. Again, I think the article looks increasingly better. Cheers. SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Article Censoring

There are several widely confirmed facts that keep being removed, even with legitimate sources. This is not right and handpicking what’s included to form a diluted narrative is not fair to Wikipedia users or readers. Maxwell48 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You did not offer any sources with this edit. "The most unpopular senator" is a definitive statement of opinion and impossible to objectively state; it should be phrased as the views found by the pollster or whomever determined that. If there is other information you feel should be added, please offer it. This is not meant to be a piece to blackball Senator Collins just as much as it shouldn't be a piece to whitewash her. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

I started this new section in Talk because the issue has been raised in editing comments that the page may have a NPOV issue. I think that there is some validity to that. I think several editors, myself included, could do a better job of utilizing the talk page especially as the article has been successfully condensed to a more comparable size to the articles of other politicians. Now that the Political Positions of Susan Collins page is there for more detailed or comprehensive information, the space here needs consensus editing. I think it is important for each of us to bear in mind that we are going to have feelings about positions, and who wouldn't? It just means editors should share more here and agree as much as possible. Cheers to everybody! SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting again that there are many editors, possibly those who are not verified users, who seem to edit with the purpose of giving a partisan view of Susan Collins. For example, a CNN source which contrasted her 19 year average of voting with her party 59% of the time with the 87% in 2017, was used by an editor to only include the 2017 statistic giving a misleading impression of how she has voted. I think it is fair to include her more partisan conservative drift, but to fairly make a comparison her overall record has to be included. It is frowned upon in writing styles, especially encyclopedic writing styles, to cherry pick the source. Also, as the article notes, she votes with Pres. Trump about 67% of the time according to FiveThirtyEight. This is higher than expected given Maine's political demography, but it is lower than all other Republicans.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV and Kavanaugh

I am concerned that some editors are allowing their biases about the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh to become a pseudo-standard against which Senator Collins' decisions are weighed. On more than one ocassion, I believe editors are giving undue weight to media headlines (in contravention of standards for Wiki: In the News) and that some of the contributors are rejecting consensus-building and are instead arguing that only if a statement implies a certain direction (i.e. that Collins' vote for Kavanaugh somehow ties her to all his decisions) that it is valid. This directly contravenes the NPOV rule under Wiki:biography of living persons standards. If content is not balanced, that is not showing the other side of a current event, then it is not meeting the criteria for this article being a biography of a living person and politician. To continue emphasizing the need for NPOV, it is clearly not neutral to cite current events relating to Kavanaugh and only mention that she is criticized for that vote. That is already covered sufficiently in this article and is covered in even more detail in the expanded article about her political views. That some commentators and constituents criticize her is already duly noted. It is not NPOV to continue to mention that under every issue when 1) Kavanaugh's rulings on abortion, for example, are not directly related to Senator Collins' own views and votes on abortion rights and 2) logically, if one is going to tie her views to every vote made by Kavanaugh based on the fact that she voted for him then logically she is also tied to the other justices for whom she voted based on the same fact. The simplest way to avoid this NPOV issue is to not focus unnecessarily on one justice. It was in the news, yes. What else was in the news? Her votes for Sotomayor and Kagan were in the news. Her votes for Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch were in the news. If we add every current event then we water-down wikipedia's standards for relevance. I urge that as editors we either 1) reach consensus and find a balanced way to present the material fairly or 2) we don't mention Kavanaugh every time he is in the news.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The article already says this about Kavanaugh and it takes up more space than her own view on abortion. I think that most editors would find that this is sufficient to explain the controversy of Kavanaugh and how he relates to abortion (even though she has voted for justices who have ruled on both sides). "According to NARAL Pro-Choice America and Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, Collins "has supported over 90% of Trump's picks for federal judge positions, including 32 nominees who have indicated they oppose abortion rights." Collins has defended her votes to support these nominees by citing her support for both of President Obama's Supreme Court appointments.[104] Collins voted in favor of the confirmation of Trump's second Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, stating that she did not believe he would overturn Roe.[105][106]"SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I started reading, researching, and re-working the material shortly after posting this. I think the core of what I have contributed maintains the information that some firmly believe needs to be included, namely that Kavanaugh voted to restrict abortion rights in 2020, while also being balanced and including another decision that received similar media attention and notoriety, from Kavanaugh, from 2018 in which he voted to deny writ of certorari of cases that were against Planned Parenthood, after which Collins said she felt "vindicated" or "vindication." It is my aspiration that this helps present an NPOV balanced view required by wikipedia standards. I invite other editors to re-word this.SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing of material related to her Kavanaugh vote

Collins voted for Brett Kavanaugh, and argued in doing so that he would respect precedence on abortion rights and would not undermine abortion rights. That he ultimately ruled to allow states to severely reduce the availability of abortion is obviously relevant to her position on abortion and her vote for him. That she voted to confirm an anti-abortion extremist to the Supreme Court is clearly notable, as indicated by the extensive RS coverage. That she also happened to confirm normal judges should not be juxtaposed with her vote for Kavanaugh, as there is nothing notable about voting to confirm judges that hold your views, but it is notable and aberrational to vote to confirm judges who end up jeopardizing the very rights that she claims to support. It is inconceivable that abortion will be criminalized by Congress but it is entirely reasonable to expect that the Supreme Court might do it, and she made that more likely with her vote for Kavanaugh. That is why there is so much RS coverage of her support for anti-abortion judges. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There are a few issues at play. 1) Did Kavanaugh make any rulings that would overturn Roe v Wade? The answer, at least so far, is no. While he wrote a dissent in the minority opinion in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russothe case did not question whether Roe or Casey were to be overturned. Legal experts acknowledged that the case's outcome, either way, would be unlikely to overturn Roe. 2) Collins voted for three of the justices who ruled in the majority. Using the very logic presented in your response, she is then tied to her votes for them as well. There are plenty of news headlines about them, but the Wiki:In the news standards apply to all and that especially is important for NPOV. The role of editors is not to decide that people need to hear a certain perspective from some people about her vote on Kavanaugh (which I will reiterate is already mentioned in the article multiple times). And, why was it added without balanced persepctive to comply with NPOV? Collins, among others as noted above, already provided a response arguing the case did not go to the heart of Roe. 3) Collins said the same about Roberts and Gorsuch when she cast her vote for them, that is that they would respect Roe and that, in the case of Gorsuch, that he would respect Obergefell and other precedents. Certainly, there are many RS that cover Roberts decision in the Louisana case and both Roberts and Gorsuch's opinions in the Bostock v Clayton County et al cases. 4) Since her vote on Kavanaugh is already mentioned and highlighted numerous times even over-against the other justices for whom she has voted, why does it need to be mentioned every time he is in the news in every section? It is already mentioned multiple times that she voted for Kavanaugh and that some high-profile critics believe this to to be a danger to abortion rights or other rights.You made a good case for why editors should arrive at a consensus and back its inclusion. It is there already and I for one agree with you on it being includedSeminarianJohn (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. A majority of Senators voted to affirm Kavanaugh, and singling out Collins is inappropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

References

She claims to be pro-choice, yet voted to confirm Kavanaugh who has now voted to allow states to severely reduce the availability of abortion in the US. Leaving it unclear to readers whether Kavanaugh ultimately sought to restrict abortion does readers a disservice. That she voted for justices that supposedly agree with her is completely irrelevant (just as it is of zero interest and relevance that Ted Cruz voted to confirm Kavanaugh and that Kavanaugh later ruled to restrict abortion rights, because Cruz is firmly anti-abortion). That you personally do not care about Kavanaugh's opinion (your own analysis that it's not a threat to abortion rights is both wrong and irrelevant) or that Collins is making up some nonsense as to why Kavanaugh's opinion wasn't a threat to abortion rights is also irrelevant. We stick to what RS report, not your own analysis. Looking at your history, you seem to have an overwhelming focus in your editing of portraying various conservative figures as being pro-LGBT and and pro-choice, which makes your analysis all the more sketchy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the personal attacks that you chose to insert. However, I am confident that when other editors see this, they will be able to converse respectfully and with regard to the facts rather than emotive ad hominem. It was not my analysis I provided; I cited The Atlantic. I can cite more. Furthermore, you are rejecting RS that contradicts your view. You can't insist we include RS that discusses the Kavanaugh dissent but not include RS for other perspectives. It is irrelevant but I have never voted for a Republican for President or for US Senate or US House. So, to accuse me of trying to 'help' Republicans by editing pages is again a disappointing ad hominem. Neither did I say that his vote to restrict abortion rights was not a threat to access to abortion services. That is both untrue and one of the personal attacks I refer to. His vote was, in my opinion, a threat to a woman and patient's access, but that is not the title of this article and neither is it our place to make this article about that. I am and I share this often very interested in the centrist factions of US politics. Because I have focused on that, including in my academic career(s), I stay in my lane of experience. I have never claimed that an anti-abortion Republican, like Ted Cruz, is pro-abortion rights and neither have I claimed that a pro-abortion rights Democrat, like Dianne Feinstein, is anti-abortion. What I did do here is I cited The Atlantic but I could cite many more that acknowledge that, though important, 1) June Services v Louisiana does not go to the question of Roe's place in stare decisis. 2) No one is leaving Kavanaugh's vote ambiguous. This is Susan Collins' page with a summary; it is noted on Kavanaugh's page already that he voted to restrict abortion rights. 3) That you consider Collins 'conservative' is your opinion. Some on the hard-right consider her 'liberal.' We could debate all day if she is conservative or liberal or a centrist or many other things. 4) Regarding your statements towards me as a person, I encourage you to be more collegial and polite. The way you come across is as attacking and overly biased and it feels as though you attempted to belittle and demean me as a person. So, sticking to the actual discussion here a) Can you share why you think there needs to be more written content about Kavanaugh and his abortion controversy, more than is already there? If you add more, you are making the section on Abortion include more about Kavanaugh than Senator Collins' views on abortion. The article also already says she voted for Kavanaugh despite concerns over his and other judges' anti-abortion views. I think that is the strongest argument against adding more. There is the political positions of Susan Collins page in which to add more. This is a summary and it's getting too long, and the controversy about Kavanaugh's vote is already there.SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The article clearly needs to note that the man she confirmed to the court ultimately ended up seeking to severely reduce the availability of abortion. The article cannot leave it unclear whether Kavanaugh actually posed a threat to abortion rights. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion, like my opinion, is not the standard that dictates the quality of articles or their contents. You feel very strongly about Kavanaugh and have declared a particular interest in him. That's both fine and great to have that interest, and I have no intention of arguing about how bad or good he is or is not. However, this page is called Susan Collins, a biography of a living person. 1) Brett Kavanaugh is already mentioned multiple times, including the controversy and it looks between the two of us there is now an additional section highlighting the more recent criticism of her vote for him given his dissent in June v Russo. 2) Brett Kavanaugh has a page and it is made abundantly clear there that he ruled against access to abortion services, a vote to further restrict abortion. It is not our job to put Kavanaugh on every page of every Senator who voted for him, neither is it our job to go to every page and praise the Senators who voted against him. 3) As a biography of a living person, wikipedia has clear rules. You may not like them, but they are here. You cannot call her 'delusional' even if you are quoting Planned Parenthood. Standing alone, that is nothing more than vandalism. Maybe start a section on her political positions page about her relationship with Planned Parenthood (maybe I'll go start that section) and that way we can provide a balanced encyclopedic entry on her relationship with Planned Parenthood. They endorsed her in 2002 and gave her an award for being pro-abortion rights in 2017, and then endorsed her potential opponent and contributed against her over her Kavanaugh vote and her vote for other judges they did not approve of.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, I recall we had a discussion about another page involving a Republican. You disagreed with my addition of the politician's anti-abortion rights position. So, I don't know where you get the idea from that I make them look pro-abortion rights. Those two don't exactly go together.SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you fought to include poorly sourced context-free content about a conservative politician opposing late term abortions, which made it seem like a reasonable and moderate position (who wants to kill a baby just before it leaves the womb?), even though the appropriate context would have made it clear that late-term abortions are a medical procedure used when the health and life of the mother, the fetus or both have been seriously jeopardized, and is needed to save the mother's life or euthanize a non-viable fetus rather than keep it alive for days and weeks for no purpose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I am disappointed you resort to personal attacks. The New York Times, Congressional Archives, The Atlantic, CNN, etc. are all "poorly sourced?" Or, is it that anyone who adds something you find objectionable is suddenly "poorly sourced?" And, the vandalism needs to stop. I have been nothing but respectful to you, but the insults and personal attacks need to stop and the vandalism of this page needs to stop. There is a clear rule placed on the top of this very page about targeting Collins for bias and vandalism editing. Calling her delusional by quoting Planned Parenthood is both inappropriate and in contravention of the rules about BLP.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to your addition of content on another politician's page about said politician's opposition to late-term abortions, which you framed as some reasonable moderate position on the subject when any well-sourced context would have clarified that prohibitions on late-term abortions are anything but. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That is untrue. I did not frame it as some moderate stance. As I said then, and say now, I am against that anti-abortion law. That does not mean that when a Senator takes that particular anti-abortion position that it shouldn't mentioned. And, it was mentioned. we finally came to an, albeit unspoken, agreement on how to word it. You do not assume good faith and that is a HUGE problem. You keep accusing me of supporting this or opposing that, even saying I want to help Republicans, and then you find out 1) I've never voted for a Republican for federal office and 2) I'm pro-abortion rights and was very angry about the Senate's confirmation of Kavanaugh. The fact that you accuse me of trying to make anti-abortion legislation look favorable, which I maintain very strongly is untrue, means that I'm trying to be a fair objective editor who does not allow my pro-abortion rights bias to affect how I speak of politicians with different views. At least start by assuming good faith next time, please.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to the Collins article gives a lot of space to her ludicrous assertion that Kavanaugh is not a threat to abortion rights just because he refused to hear a case involving Planned Parenthood. You give more space to this than Kavanaugh's vote to severely reduce the availability of and access to abortion in the US. Additionally, if Collins's opinion on the implications of Kavanaugh's role in the Planned Parenthood case should be included (it shouldn't because it's ludicrous), then per NPOV, Planned Parenthood's response to Collins (which is reported in the very RS that you added) should be introduced as a NPOV rebuttal of her view. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from insulting. No, it is not 'ludicrous.' In fact, that is applying the standard that you advocated for. If it is in the news and widely reported by RS (your argument for why Kavanaugh's vote should be so further scrutinized) than you have to be fair and include when he ruled in a way that was favorable to a pro-abortion rights cause (PP may have called her an insult but they argued in favor of dismissing the cases and won). Anyone can start attacking the other person. I can simply try and be dismissive and refer to all of your arguments as 'sketchy,' 'ludicrous,' 'poorly sourced,' etc. OR there can be civil and constructive editing which I am trying very hard to do here by both remaining respectful to you and using respectful language. I ask the same in return. Vandalism calling her "delusional" on a wiki:BLP is not okay and I know you are aware of that rule. Again, Kavanaugh is already mentioned many many many times and it is already abundantly clear here, and even more so where it belongs on his wiki page, that he has an anti-abortion track record. I do not know what more you want on this page. It is not the Brett Kavanaugh page.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead paragraph

User: Lawrence 979 made an edit to remove some information from the lead sentence - namely, a reference to the previous senior senator from Maine.[2] In the process they also removed the statement that she is a Republican. I restored that part of the information [3], thinking it might have been removed accidentally. But Lawrence 979 deleted it again, without explanation, and User:331dot restored it. Lawrence, we need you to stop reverting, and come here to the talk page and explain why you are removing information about Collins’ party - information which is included in the lead paragraph of virtually all politicians. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Caption

The image file says the creation date is 2015. Why does the caption say 2014? -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It could be a typo, although the image information isn't always the same as the time the image was taken. Would have to dig through the edit history to see if it's said 2014 since it was placed there. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The image first appeared in the article on the date listed in the file's metadata, so it appears to be correct. Old revision here:(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Collins&oldid=645037277) -Mad Mismagius (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Roe v Wade legacy

Someone is deleting new vote by Collins which is her first vote since the Supreme Court leaked opinion ending Roe v Wade was released. Susan Collins legacy will be her vote to confirm these justices who she claims went back on their word and voted to overturn Roe. It is important to note the promise was not made in a vacuum, and thst she rose to the senate floor to defend the promise as authentic despite criticism that the promises were disingenuous. After her floor speech she voted for Brett Kavanaugh when then did go forward and vote to repeal Roe v Wade.

Added section: On May 11, 2022, Senator Collins voted against a bill to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. This was Senator Collins’ first vote on abortion rights following the leaked Supreme Court opinion showing Roe v. Wade will be overturned by members of the court she cast the her vote for, ignoring the pleas by womens rights organizations that she was given disingenuous promises by the justices in their confirmation hearing in exchange for her vote to confirm. The vote to confirm these justices to the bench, and with the senator’s swing vote for Brett Kavanaugh, changed the make-up of the court, resulting in the landmark ruling that recognized abortion as a privacy right for women being overturned, and ended the courts centuries old precidence based approach to law known as stare decisis. Senator Collins has secured her legacy as the senator that ended this women’s rights movement and the nature of the Supreme Court away from a precedence based rule of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B105:CA4C:DD7F:BA9D:51BF:E81B (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Please get off your WP:SOAPBOX and follow WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed article bias replacing removed content surrounding the legacy vote of Senator Susan Collins inserting only fact and widely published scholarly analysis with 10 references including primary sources and prominent articles, analysis from legal scholars, and the senators own words of the importance Roe v Wade had to precidence in the history of the court. Many scholars argue her vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh was essential to the pending demise of Roe this legacy vote of the senators career. For an understanding of Roe v. Wades prominence in law see Roe’s wiki article which is cited.

See citations from Politico, the NYT, Ballotopia (a full timeline of the senators words and actions is published there and cited). The changes are tied together with the senators words of the significance of Roe and why she felt compelled to defend her vote on the floor of the Senate.

To remove this from the article would represent deep bias to distort the words, voting record, and current events surrounding the legacy of Senator Susan Collins. Further more adding this legacy vote directly under the paragraph about her vote on the 2020 impeachment vote and vote on another justice justifies the spot of this replaced version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41D:4BB3:DD8F:6818:BC16:7BE1 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

—- updated version—- On May 2, 2022, Politico ran an exclusive article of the confirmed legitimate leaked opinion of the court where Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Subsequent to the release of this leaked opinion Susan Collins stated, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,.” The Senator in 2018, made a speech on the floor of the US Senate to defend her vote for Kavanaugh, as there were substantial doubts that Brett Kavanaugh was being genuine in his promise. Susan Collins in her speech vouched that Brett Kavanaugh would defend Roe: “His views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.” Senator Collins in the speech was in part referencing stare decisis, which bound the court by precidence in it’s judicial rulings. Legal scholars, such as Alison Frankel, argue precidence based rule of law would fall along with Roe v. Wade in this leaked opinion. As early as October 5, 2018 the NYT described Susan Collins vote as her “legacy” and cited Michael Keegan, president of People for the American Way as stating, “This shameful vote will be Susan Collins’s legacy,” . Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48, and could not have been seated without the vote of Senator Susan Collins.

On May 11, 2022, after the leaked opinion became public, Senator Collins voted against a bill to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41D:4BB3:DD8F:6818:BC16:7BE1 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Electoral History

Why is there no Electoral History section? Most elected officials have one. They all should. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

In Senator Collins' case, she has been on the ballot in Maine six times. Once for Governor of Maine, the other five times for US Senate. This is all detailed in this article: Electoral history of Susan Collins Unknown0124 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)