Talk:Gabby Giffords/Archive 2

Metaphor Alert

"Personal Life" section, 3rd graph, 4th sentence.

"On May 31, 2008, Kelly rocketed toward the heavens for the third time as Commander of STS-124."

71.168.138.244 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo update?

Should the photo of Ms. Giffords be updated? It looks like she has a new offical photo. I'm can not edit and would not know how even if I could. The photo is available here http://giffords.house.gov/Working_atDesk_cropped.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztony (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 03:09, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis protected Gabrielle Giffords ‎ ([edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
• 03:15, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" ‎ (edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist)
• 21:44, 19 May 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" ‎ (reduce to semi-prot [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)

That was well over a year ago so I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. As well as welcoming comments from regular editors I've contacted FCYTravis, the protecting admin. --TS 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reason is forthcoming it seems like this article should be opened up. - Schrandit (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

immigration section

The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa, it doesn't belong in an immigration portion of the article. Thanks. Parallel process (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Whoever listed Sarah Palin on the thing is way out of line. Just because Palin opposses this woman doesnt mean Sarah Palin should be mentioned in the Shooting section at all. That is way out of line.

NPOV in introduction

I have removed the last sentence of the introduction, which read: "She claims to be a Blue Dog Democrat though her voting record has led some to question that claim, noting that she has voted with liberal Nancy Pelosi 94% of the time." This is on several grounds. Firstly, the statement is founded on a factually inaccurate premise. The Blue Dog Coalition is an actual grouping of House members. Giffords is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, which makes her a Blue Dog Democrat: there is nothing to "question" on this. Secondly, the statement does not represent a neutral point of view, by attempting to create the impression of controversy on grounds that have not adequately been justified. Thirdly, the statement does not meet the lead section guideline of being representative of the article as a whole, since no such dispute or "questioning" is mentioned anywhere in the article itself. Fourthly, the source for the statement falls well short of the verifiability benchmark, being a site which brands itself as having a "blatantly conservative worldview". Cyril Washbrook (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of Impartial Tone policy

The Gun Rights section is technically accurate, however its incompleteness makes it one-sided. I would like to add the following: "Giffords touts her status as a 'long-time gun owner.'(1) In 2008, she joined in the amicus brief for the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the appellate court ruling that overturned the controversial DC gun ban.(2)

1) http://giffords.house.gov/2008/09/VOTESTOREPEALBANONHANDGUNSINTHENATIONSCAPITAL.shtml

2) http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuSenateHouseMembers.pdf

I would also like to expand the "Outsourcing" section to a more complete and accurate "Immigration" section which would include the following edits and additions: "In 2008, Giffords introduced legislation to raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa) from 65,000 per year to their pre-2003 levels of 130,000 per year. Detractors, including programmers' unions, felt the increased cap would put existing workers at a disadvantage. Supporters of the increase, such as Microsoft Founder Bill Gates, said the move was necessary for high tech companies to recruit and retain world-class high-skilled workers.(1)

"Arizona's 8th Congressional District is one of 10 in the country bordering Mexico. Giffords has been an advocate for stronger U.S. – Mexico border enforcement, sponsoring or cosponsoring legislation to increase Border Patrol personnel in the region and provide them with 21st century technology (H.R. 1867). Giffords supports stronger penalties against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She sponsored the Employee Verification Amendment Act (H.R. 6633)(2) and cosponsored the New Employee Verification Act (H.R. 5551)(3) to improve federal programs to verify citizenship of new employees (4).

1) http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid183_gci1306494,00.html

2) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06633:

3) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05515:

4) http://giffords.house.gov/2009/10/effort-to-extend-improve-employee-verification-program.shtml

Beyond these specific changes, I am still concerned that there are users making edits to this page who are not making them in good faith. Of particular concern is user Parallel Process, who seems to have a history of only adding questionable statements to Democratic candidates wikipages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Parallel_process) I'm not sure what procedures Wikipedia has in place for these situations, but I wanted to be sure and flag it for you. Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Outsourcing

Economic issues, such as outsourcing, are as relevant as any and do indeed belong in this article. Using documentation to show the H1b is used mainly by outsourcing companies is important, otherwise the section makes no sense. I believe some editors may feel this section is an attempt at a biased attack; it was not meant to be any such thing. Actually, many would argue that outsourcing is good for the economy. Giffords' supporting outsourcing is neither positive or negative, it is merely a fact. Parallel process (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it say that H-1B visas are mainly used by outsourcers, though? "Five of the top 10 were Indian outsourcers. The complete list of 200, however, shows a mix of foreign companies, U.S. technology vendors, and American universities. Microsoft is number three on the list, IBM number eight, and Oracle USA number nine. The New York City Public School system ranks twenty-second on the list, with 642 H-1B visas received last year."[1] I don't see that text supporting the assertion that the main users of H1-B visas are outsourcers, though. Has Giffords said anything on the record about why she proposed the bill? —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Found a statement from her spokesman, C. J. Karamargin: "Giffords sees the importance of H-1Bs because Southern Arizona has been growing as a hub for tech companies, Karamargin added. 'There's a need to stay competitive and keep the momentum growing,' he added. 'That means making sure the talent is available to drive the local and national tech economy.'"[2] —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's getting there. The section is coming together, but the section seems to be a bit 'awkward' when reading. Needs to be smoothed out. Parallel process (talk) —The preceding comment was added on 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

"The bill would have restricted the number of H-1B employees in companies with more than 50 employees." Citation needed. Please add. Parallel process (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

It's the same citation as the following sentence. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorable Title

It's not commonly used, no other HR members I checked have such a title above their names. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Aaron Shock, Nancy Pelosi,John Boehner, ect. None have it. It would seem it is Wikipedia policy not to include the title. Parallel process (talk) —The preceding comment was added on 23:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

More, it is not custom/project policy in articles on US politicians to include the titles. (By contrast, for Canadian MPs, the title field is used—see Sheila Copps by way of example.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a US Rep. The title should not be displayed. Parallel process (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Abortion

I can't find any reference to the Hyde Amendment in the source cited (citation #9: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3920). Can anyone else find that there or at another credible source? Also, I would question the impartiality of the loaded term "elective abortion." Agreed? Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:BLP. The statement needs to be sourced properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Just to note, per this discussion, User:Stephanie4815162342 has a conflict of interest in regard to the subject of this article, and is aware of Wikipedia's rules regarding editing with a COI. From what I can see, she has been following that policy, making suggestions here instead of editing the article directly. Editors, however, should be aware of her circumstance, which is the purpose of this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"poor organization"

Thanks for the insult - I won't waste any more time on this "campaign flyer" article. Someday you might figure out this is an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

One wonders to whom this was addressed? --Absolut1966 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Check the article's history from around the signed time for the relevant edit comment, probably just a minor edit war between editors such as yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabrielle_Giffords&action=historysubmit&diff=395299379&oldid=395268929 ... 70.15.11.44 (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)