Talk:Jackie Speier/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Spam Discussion

Speier is a strong supporter of using SPAM for advertising. Her campaign staff regularly sends out SPAM email advertisements as well as leaving recorded messages on voice mail. Contrary to the beliefs of Gershwinrb, not all political campaigns endorse and use SPAM. In fact, Speier is the only canidate listed in the current primary who left me voicemail spam in her current campaign. 148.87.1.170 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed by the number of editors of this page that are supporters of SPAM. Chuck Simmons 04:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you verified that you weren't signed up on a Speier mailing list by someone else? There seem to be many possibilities here that you haven't considered and haven't ruled out. As to voicemail, voicemail is by definition not SPAM since it is not email or written messaging of any kind. It's telemarketing. As for your "You people disgust and amaze me" comment, I guess you haven't read Wikipedia:Civility. Maybe you should. Ortcutt 04:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure you can use a narrow definition of SPAM. However, it is quite reasonable to use a generalized definition which includes any sort of untargeted broadcast communication. Just as it is reasonable and your moral obligation for you to censure me when I act incivilly on Wikipedia, we also have a moral obligation to censure people who engage in unsolicited untargeted broadcast communication. It is reasonable and our moral obligation to point out when spammers are acting incivilly toward society as a whole.

Also, it is not reasonable to expect me to figure out how a sender of SPAM acquires my email address or telephone number. You are saying that not only must I bear the costs of the undesired SPAM, but I must also pay the additional costs of figuring out how that SPAM arose in the first place. I did consider the possibility and ruled it out as highly unlikely. It is more likely that Speier acquired my telephone number and email address from semi-public records such as when I registered to vote. Especially since some of her SPAM communications suggested this was the case. Chuck Simmons 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't want to be contacted by political campaigns, why would you give your email address and phone number when you registered to vote? The voter rolls are public information and the information in them is allowed to be used for campaign activities. If you gave your information, then you consented to that. Ergo, not SPAM. Ortcutt 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. You are saying that I must proactively think of every possible way that any piece of information might be abused and make sure that I do not subject myself to abuse. It's my fault that I got raped because I was wearing a skirt while walking down the street. Chuck Simmons 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is that it isn't abuse. It's one of the allowed uses of voter registration info. If you don't like it even if it isn't abuse, then you should have thought of that when you registered. Ortcutt 18:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Voter Registration forms clearly indicate which information is vital and which you are not obligated to provide such as phone and e-mail. So, I would suggest updating your registration form. As I recall Speier was one of the few legislators who was a privacy advocate under SB773 and took a great political heat for introducing said bill. So, being that the primary was in June 2006 I don't see what the fuss is on about now. Perhaps, it could be due to talk about her making a run for Tom Lantos' congressional seat in two years[1]?

the politician infobox

Smeelgova, Thanks for the politician infobox, it sure looks nice. PEACETalkAbout 07:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome! And thank you for the acknowledgement! It is not often on Wikipedia that I get compliments on any of my work, more often I just get berated. Nice to know some of the things I do around here are appreciated. Yours, Smeelgova 07:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Expansion

This article is in need of a hefty expansion and cleanup. There are plenty of highly reputable secondary sourced citations out there to choose from to expand the article. Smee 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Jonestown?

I was told she survived the Jonestown massacre and I would be able to find info on her page. Was she a follower of Jim Jones or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.218.23 (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No she was a stuff member of congressman Leo Ryans. see Jackie_Speier#Congressional_aide.2C_Leo_Ryan --VartanM 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on expanding that and adding some sources to that section. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

Google search

Simply saying in an edit summary that a Google search brings up such and such results is not satisfactory. Please provide a WP:V/WP:RS secondary source as a cite, or else we cannot allow Original Research in a WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

References added, although the SF Chronicle story already cited included the bit about Jacqueline. Factual information should be referenced, not removed. The cite for the full name is in what is now note 5, since I did not want to put it right after her name in the lead. Candidates in California races are frequently listed on the ballot with their full name, rather than nicknames. I don't know what the "K." stands for. It's peculiar that you demand a cite for a full name that shows up in numerous reliable sources and is not controversial, while much of the detailed substance of the article is without sources of any kind, unless they are in the external links. BTW, unless you and Jimbo are pals, saying "or else we cannot allow" seems a little overbearing.--Hjal (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, "we" simply refers to policy on this project. And in a Biography of a Living Person, it is quite appropriate to remove uncited, violations of WP:OR, first, and then cite and add it back only if it is cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. As the "K" is still uncited, I will remove that. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle doesn't even refer to "K" and as far as the "Jacqueline" - that seems from that article to only be her confirmation name - do you have other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that show this to be used enough for it to be the first bolded appearance? I think it's best to go just with "Jackie Speier", and then describe the alternate name later in paragraph format. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done - Nevermind, added back full name w/ cite to The New York Times. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

House of Representatives

On wikipedia's main page for the House of Reps, I've subtracted by one the number of vacancies listed there before today by one based on tonight's election of Jackie Speier. I checked here first to make sure others have already decided she's been elected, and with that result remaining uncontested by TPTB (even though I believe TPTB at Wikipedia made that decision before the AP has officially declared her the winner), so I'm counting on you guys here to back me up over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoaffectional (talk • contribs) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wording

"She is also a former Democratic member of the California State Senate". Isn't she a Democratic former member of the California State Senate?

The wording currently in the aricle made me start looking for info on why she had left the party and run for congress as an Independent. Which she hasn't as far as I can tell... /85.194.44.18 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It would've taken you less keystrokes to fix it yorself.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonestown/PT discussion

I added two Speier specific sentences regarding her foresight on the matter (she was one of only two people to make out wills beforehand) and her spotting Tim Carter (major red flag that got the team worrying that night). I also cleaned up some terminology to make it consistent with the other wikipedia Jonestown articles. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to work on that section of the article yet. There are probably literally hundreds more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that could be utilized. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a ton that could be put in about Speier in Georgetown and Jonestown from reliable sources. I hesitate to add more because of weight concerns, and some might want more of her later political career represented rather than the incidents in Guyana. I'm not saying I'm one of them, but I tried to limit the info added on the Guyana trip in case this was an issue. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Abortion" -> "D&E procedure"

Based on my deciphering of her doublespeak in the floor speech and the source I cited, it appears Speier had the surgical procedure following a miscarriage (not an induced abortion, which destroys a live child). Abortion proponents often equate the two and falsely claim that pro-life advocates oppose the former. Her testimony appears to be an example of this phenomenon. For this reason, I have changed the word “abortion” to “D&E procedure” in the article where applicable. 72.172.127.254 (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

== "Bio" ->Italic text This article is full of dead links, and in one case (that I just removed) says something that without a link explaining it, makes no sense. The claim that her father was the son of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany makes no sense given that she was born in 1950. If someone wants the article to read that her father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, that would make sense, in any case however, all the links claiming to support this don't lead to anything.

Dead reference

" Jackie Speier, Moving On, Moving Up, November 16, 2003, San Francisco Chronicle." is not working.

24.4.173.33 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jackie Speier/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*2 free images, 3 citations. Article will be expanded with additional citations from multiple reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jackie Speier. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Caputo

Need expansion on dust up as Caputo expressed on July 14 2017 press conference following committee testimony. Wikipietime (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jackie Speier. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 11:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jackie Speier. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Google Results

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask, but how are Google results set-up? By that I mean, when I search "Jackie Speier," what determines which part of the article I can see right from the Google results page? Currently, the results show part of the first paragraph, then it cuts off and says "Rep Jackie Speier wants to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump," which is the title of a random news article in the sources but seems deliberate.

Feel like this should be fixed...