Talk:Karen Handel

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

GED v. High School[edit]

It appears the only refrence for this GED claim is actually this entry, which is now being picked up nationally. I have removed it pending references in either direction. [[User:Ed Wood's Wig|]] (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, interesting comments here. — Satori Son 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And more here from less than an hour ago. We need to be on our toes with this one. — Satori Son 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

This is at peer review for a dispute resolution (the GED incident noted above). Is there any interest in a real peer review (PR is not for dispute resolution). If a review is wanted, please say so on the peer review (link above) in the next 24 hours. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there's an actual dispute for the GED material. I don't think it's necessary at this time, the problems with the article are pretty clear. [[User:Ed Wood's Wig|]] (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a dispute - someone listed this at PR to bring attention to the GED vandalism. I will archive the article's peer review - thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Conversation[edit]

Having a topic dealing with Wiki controversies strikes me as very meta and not particularly relevant to the person. Does a conversation about who edited what on whose wiki page really belong in a wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.195.53 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a brief mention is appropriate and that's about it. Not a whole section. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll trim it down a little then. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This article is tagged arguing there is a neutrality issue. Can people identify the exact problems they are seeing? It's not well written, but I'm not seeing any particular bias. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it sounds like her resume. I'm sure it will improve as her campaign is covered in the news media and better sources are added.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did she just concede?[edit]

I think there was a newscast just now that stated she conceded to Deal. 173.69.164.21 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Two unregistered editors just changed the date of birth. In tracing back to the source, I realized that nothing in the article supports her date of birth. I've commented the date out temporarily in the three places it appears in the article. Does anybody have a source for it? —C.Fred (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection needed?[edit]

It looks like there is an ongoing attempt to vandalise in the name of political soapboxing. More protection (and some IP banning) needed? 99.67.187.88 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I updated the article to reflect Handel's resignation with citation with an NPOV. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Karen Handel. 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) 11:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

For most of this article's history, the intro sentence has used the factually correct but awkward language 'businesswoman and politician in Georgia'. More recently it has been changed to 'from Georgia', which to the vast majority of readers would suggest she's a Georgia native, which she is not. Either extra language is needed to clarify this point, or a concise form of words that emphasises her long association with Georgia without suggesting she is a native should be adopted. Looking at other entries, it seems that 'from' usually refers to place of birth, sometimes childhood, but that where the subject lives somewhere other than their place of birth/upbringing, then editors have usually expanded references to origins in the intro to clarify this point (see almost any of the hundreds of entries for successful entertainment, business and political figures now resident of major east and west coast cities).

As a curious UK reader interested in the Special Election but with no axe to grind in terms of US congressional politics - which I don't follow/have views on - I found the contradiction between the intro as it now reads ('from Georgia') and the subsequent content confusing (the Early Life section provides apparently undisputed information about places of birth, upbringing and education, none of which are in Georgia).

I made a logged-out edit (I've made hundreds of small edits and several extensive edits to Wikipedia over the last 20 years, but never created an account) which has been swiftly reverted on the grounds that it's partisan (whereas I thought the original ambiguity might have partisan motivations, given that supporters of candidates standing for office usually wish them to be perceived as being as strongly associated with the constituency in which they are standing as is possible).

I'm going to revert the intro to the language that I think best reflects the subject's relationship to Georgia - long time resident, but not a native - as I think this is more accurate than 'from Georgia' and have recorded my logic for my change here. I've also created a Wikipedia account for the first time so that this change isn't made anonymously. TheOaks (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited the most stable version of the article the day before the election to add her birth in Washington DC into the lede. There is no concensus for this edit. The lead does not suggest that she is Georgia native. You just want to put in the lede that she was born in Washington, DC. There is no support for that edit. She has spend most of her adult life in Georgia and she has held statewide office in Georgia and she is currently running for Congress to represent northern Georgia. The opening paragraph in the lede properly represents her Georgia background. You have provided no rationale on why her Washington DC birth has to be in the opening lede paragraph. It is reflected in the infobox and in the early life section. That is enough. She hasn't lived there in decades. Considering the edit was done the day before the election, it seems to be suspect--since there has been no discussion or even a rationale proivided for the edit.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest referencing Washington DC just suggested it was more correct to say she has lived most of her life in Georgia rather than that she is from Georgia. Some of your analysis above is incorrect - I don't 'want to put in the lede that she was born in Washington DC' - I don't actually care, I'm sitting in a suburb of London, England, with no strong feelings on Handel's origins, just a concern that the article seems to need more objectivity, balance and context in places (which will sometimes be less favourable to Handel - like this suggested edit - and sometimes more favourable - like context around the large discrepancy between first and second placed candidate in the Jungle Primary). I have provided a rationale for the edit I made (longest contribution to this talk page), and don't need to provide a 'rationale on why her Washington DC birth has to be in the opening sentence' as I'm not proposing it is. That said, I will leave the article alone and others can update if they wish - I didn't expect to walk into a partisan debate when making an amendment aimed at clarity, and am happy to step back from it!TheOaks (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look I couldn't care less if you are in London or on the moon. Where you are located in not relevant to this discussion whatsoever. This Wikipedia and I know the possibility exists that you are located in Buckhead and you could be working on either Handel's or Ossoff's campaign. We can claim we are from anywhere, now can't we? Drop the "I'm in London and I don't have an bias" routine. You showed up without any editing track record the day before the election attempting to jam her birthplace into the lede sentence, which has been debated over and over again and the concensus is that it doesn't belong in the lede. And it so happens that one of the biggest debates in the election so far is the fact that Ossoff does not live in the district. That is suspect. Also, you come to this talk page now claiming that you don't want to jam the Washington DC birth into the lede sentence when there is an edit by you where you attempted to do just that: TheOaks attempt to jam Washington DC into the lede. And yes you do have to provide a rationale to jame Washington DC in the lede and you do have to make other edits. That's how Wikipedia works. And finally the citation that you jammed in the article do not support your claim that "Ossoff benefitted from so and so". Those citation did not even support your comments. I will remove your comments.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry didn't mean to provoke anyone by explaining where I am from - I have genuinely never contributed to a talk page on Wikipedia before and don't know the protocol. I do have the advantage of being able to read this entry without the presumed knowledge that a Georgian or someone well versed in Congressional elections would have. My edits were made in good faith on that basis. The timing is not particularly suspect (people are more likely to take an interest in a candidate's entry at the high point in an election cycle) though not previously having an account does, I accept, make the edits less credible. As for the reference to DC, once you removed it I didn't try to reinstate it, I just altered the wording for clarity. Regarding the citations seeming inappropriate, you'd asked for them against the information describing how many candidates in each party's field were politically experienced, so I added news articles relating to their candidacies that summarised their experience. I have now added a citation at the start of the sentence on the disparity in vote shares - hopefully that's what your were looking for?TheOaks (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is not (as of 6/23/17) sworn in and thus is not yet a member of the House[edit]

You don't automatically become a member of the House the second your election is called. Where is this idea coming from, that she became a member of the House on the day of her election? Please see this article from the major Atlanta paper [1] and the House website [2]. She is not a rep yet. The very idea seems rather... European... that she became a rep on June 20th, the day of her election. Amazed that this misinformation is in the article! Moncrief (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-term vacancies are seated the date of the election. JocularJellyfish (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note at 115th United States Congress, which says that special election winners, automatically take the vacant seat. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, a "note" in another Wikipedia article takes precedence over a sourced article in a major newspaper and the US House website? Moncrief (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special Election results questioning?[edit]

Given there's an ongoing lawsuit in regards to the voting integrity of the Georgia special election, which (to my knowledge) is still ongoing, is it worth noting within her relevant section for the election itself? There were some.. "irregularities" immediately following the lawsuit, such as destruction of servers etc that would likely be noteworthy and are known in relation to the election, though there has been no full resolution to the case(s) yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.95.28 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is being asked to be removed by new user[edit]

User:Sam.h.brenner is asking that this picture be removed from the article. What is the process for this? TIA Malerooster (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karen_Handel&oldid=1207534634"