Jump to content

Talk:Kyrsten Sinema/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

BLP violations

I have just noticed what has been going on in this article and its talkpage over the past 10 days and am deeply unhappy about it. An account named OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks adding massive negative speculation to a BLP should have been blocked immediately, for the username if nothing else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the user name?--Malerooster (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's actually fairly obvious. The first edit by OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks was to come straight to this article and start adding negative (and in some instances bizarre) allegations about the BLP subject. It's obvious that the username was referring to Kyrsten Sinema, which means the name was the same thing as saying "Kyrsten Sinema is a crook" and putting that in the article or talkpage history every time the account edited. That's a blatant BLP violation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
ok, I didn't really get that deep into it, thats why it wasn't obvious to me. I came from the BLP board and removed the controversies section cited to a blog. Just to be clear, it was the user's editing combined with the handle then. If a user was doing the "right" thing, would that handle be ok in your opinion? --Malerooster (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, no one intending to edit neutrally and appropriately would sign up with that username in the first place. And if they did, I would counsel them to change the username for their own good, as it sooner or later it would be misinterpreted and draw them into an unnecessary controversy. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Username#Disruptive or offensive usernames for the general policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Which specific section of that do you feel applies here? --Malerooster (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Also, not trying to be a dick since I support your block, but I would have done it for disruption or trolling, related to the name. --Malerooster (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess that sort of answers my question above, but what if this user only edited baseball articles in a constructive way, would this be different? --Malerooster (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need to humor people who come here for the sole purpose of smearing a political candidate with a bunch of privacy invading original research and speculative allegations. We don't need to find some specific line in our documented policy to justify blocking such an account. Gigs (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Initially, I read it differently than Brad did when I was providing a third opinion. I recognized it as a single purpose account, but I am not sure why I didn't take a harder line on that. The user seemed to be acting on good faith, at least once I came by to provide the third opinion. Brad, as usual, I believe is right here. Go Phightins! 19:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The SPA issue isn't as important as the issue of the type of primary source digging and speculation that he was doing. If you see someone pulling up traffic ticket records and other private court records unrelated to a controversy that's being reported in secondary sources, and using it to synthesize negative speculation about someone, that's a red flag for a serious BLP violation that should be removed on sight. I would say just watch for that kind of thing more carefully in the future. Gigs (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2012

The New York Times quote from reference 16 should be followed by an explanation that SB1070 is not anti-immigration legislation. It is anti-ILLEGAL immigration legislation. It is a very common and purposely misinformed scare tactic from the liberal open borders and pro-illegal immigration groups to call the legislation 'anti-immigration'.

Please do the research for yourself and you will find that there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that limits legal immigration since the states do not control immigration. SB1070 was written to address the failure of the federal government to execute it's duties to secure and protect the international borders, and to alleviate the abuse of our social programs, to aid in the relief of unpaid hospital bills by illegals which have contributed to the rising debt of hospitals, the depression of wages, by those persons, regardless of race, who are ILLEGALLY in our country. It also targeted employers who knowingly hire and employ persons known to be here ILLEGALLY, and pay them substandard and untaxed 'under-the-table' wages. It also addresses safety issues pertaining to person known as day laborers that oftentimes pose a safety hazard to themselves and drivers of passing vehicles by standing in the streets or parking lots waiting to be illegally hired by lawbreaking businesses.

Thank you for having the integrity to inform Wiki readers of the truth, and thus making Wikipedia a more reliable online resource. Azdzrtfox (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This one's easily solved: the source didn't even say that. Removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Box: Nontheist question

Why would the personal information box state "Religion" as "Nontheist" when it is indeed "none"? Is this Wikipedia policy? 89.244.108.30 (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Ben

"Nontheist" is more specific. There are many people who list their religious affiliation as "none" yet still believe in a god of some sort (e.g., pantheists, people who are "spiritual but not religious", those who view all religions as equally valid, those who believe in God but shun organized religion, etc.). Sinema doesn't fall into any of these categories because she doesn't believe in God at all, so it's better to be as specific as possible. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This would mean "Religion" as a box item wasn't shorthand for "religious affiliation" then? Because you argue the item's content to go beyond self-descript religious affiliation. Hence my curiosity about policy. Strictly logically, it does not resolve to me how "not believing in a god" could be labelled a subset of "Religion"; it just does not fall into this category. 89.244.104.217 (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Ben
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that atheism is a religion, at least under the law. [1] [http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/]. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
What the 7th court rules or does not rule is a non sequitur, this isn't a legal question. - Atfyfe (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The only description of Ms. Sinema's religion that I've read in the media is "nontheist", so presumably that's what she self-identifies as or at least the only sourced label for her religion available. Personally, I'd never heard the term "nontheism" before and it sounds like an unhelpful euphemism to me; but if (1) she self-identifies as "nontheist", and (2) there is a well-sourced wikipedia entry for "nontheism", then her religion box state ought to be "nontheist". -Atfyfe (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Just edited to remove this, since it appears that she doesn't actually identify by this term. Source: [2] - EndingPop (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Great, detailed source find. Thanks! Don't we all appreciate some of these distinctions are a complicated matter... 89.244.104.217 (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Ben
See also this article, where Sinema's spokesperson is quoted: ""Kyrsten believes the terms non-theist, atheist or nonbeliever are not befitting of her life's work or personal character," Unga said in email. "She does not identify as any of the above."" This contradicts the article's own title ("Arizona Democrat to replace defeated Pete Stark as sole atheist in Congress"), and another quote in the article from the Secular Coalition for America. Apparently, some otherwise reliable sources picked up on this claim from SCA, also made (and later retracted) by Hemant Mehta, without actually checking with Sinema. I wouldn't be surprised if the claim gets re-added, so we'll have to watch out for it, for BLP reasons. Nick Graves (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
All recent updates to articles on this seem to originate from e-mail clarification by Sinema's congressional campaign's communications director. Another example [3] 89.244.125.226 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Ben
What about adding "Religion: None" to the infobox? Seems like this would fit Sinema's self-description and also bring the infobox in line with those of other members of Congress. -Brycehughes (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Where is the source for her declaring what her religion/spirituality is? That will tell us what to put. Insomesia (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I found Politicians Who Reject Labels Based on Religion which states, in part, "Although raised a Mormon, Ms. Sinema is often described as a nontheist ... a campaign spokesman rejected any simple category for Ms. Sinema. ... “Kyrsten believes the terms ‘nontheist,’ ‘atheist’ or ‘nonbeliever’ are not befitting of her life’s work or personal character,” the spokesman, Justin Unga, said Thursday in an e-mail. “Though Sinema was raised in a religious household, she draws her policy-making decisions from her experience as a social worker who worked with diverse communities and as a lawmaker who represented hundreds of thousands.”" I think we could quote some of this into one sentence as it was a part of the campaign reported nationally as being newsworthy. Insomesia (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but as per the above, she seems to object to the label "nonthiest," so I figure religion=none is the safest terminology. at least within the infobox. I think some sort of religious description is important to have, at least for consistency's sake. -Brycehughes (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Why? The safest is to not give anything. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we can declare "none" as their religious category without her stating that implicitly, I think that would be original research. This was a national news issue, this particular aspect of the campaign, so instead of avoiding what is covered by reliable sources I think we can find a NPOV of stating the subject's view on religious affiliations for her, at this time. A good article would at least mention this, even in passing. I don't think it should go in the infobox but others may feel it needs to be there. I do think it needs to be in the article one way or another. Insomesia (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree that something should be added to the article. Two sources appear to have gotten it right (here and here) after asking the Sinema campaign about her religious beliefs. So, based on those, how about something like this: "Although Sinema has been described as an atheist and non-theist, she rejects those terms and states that she simply believes in a secular approach to government." -Brycehughes (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel most comfortable if we include a direct quote "terms non-theist, atheist or nonbeliever are not befitting of her life's work or personal character" attributed to her campaign. That way it's termed how they state and the reader can make up their own mind if that means "none" or something else. Insomesia (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that something should be said that both conveys the confusion over her religious views but avoids describing her views in anyway she explicitly rejects. But I don't like the tone of "Although Sinema has been described as...". Sinema has rejected those descriptions and so they should be framed as false reports rather than mere descriptions she rejects. Also, I didn't see any report that she was an atheist, everywhere I read they were careful to use the phrase "non-theist" (whatever that is). Perhaps some like this: "While initially it had been reported in several news outlets that Sinema was a non-theist, she has subsequently rejected this characterization of her religious views without elaboration." I say "without elaboration" because "she simply believes in a secular approach to government" is a completely different fact about her than her personal religious beliefs. All that she has said about her personal religious views is that she rejects "labels" (including "non-theist"), but so far I am unaware of her anywhere stating what she accepts. Actually, my suggested alternative phrasing isn't very different from Brycehughes' phrasing. Hmmm... - Atfyfe (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's combining the three ideas, I think "without elaboration" isn't correct because her campaign specifically did elaborate to a point. How does this work for everyone?

In the 2012 election when Sinema's religious views were raised as an issue, her campaign stated "terms non-theist, atheist or nonbeliever are not befitting of her life's work or personal character" and that she simply believes in a secular approach to government.

If that's too wordy we can push "terms non-theist, atheist or nonbeliever are not befitting of her life's work or personal character" into a footnote so it's still her quote but not undue. Thoughts? Insomesia (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I like that. I don't think it's too wordy. -Brycehughes (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
On Wikipedia sexuality and religion have a higher standard of sourcing, we have to report what the person states about these aspects even if reliable sources caged them differently. That's why i think using her attributed quotes works best for now. Insomesia (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
What you have there meets that high standard, I think. If no one objects to it within a reasonable time frame, I'd go ahead and add it in. -Brycehughes (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and added your text into the article. I opted for the shorter version with a footnote, because rebutting the atheist, etc., claims didn't seem to fit in the context of the paragraph. -Brycehughes (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, I added "nontheism" to the infobox, based on an article I read on the Advocate. I did not think to check the talk page first, and after I did, I saw that this issue has been discussed extensively, so I self-reverted. I apologize for the confusion. It looks like a good solution has been reached in this discussion thread, and I will let someone who was a part of the original discussion make the consensus edits. Tucsontammy (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to say that she wasn't the only nontheist in the congress but rather the only publicly self-acknowledged nontheist, but my edit - and that entire part of the sentence, which was there before I added my three words - keeps getting reverted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.47.249 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Bipartisanship

Currently in the lead we have "Initially considered to be a progressive, since being elected she has moved towards the political centre and has worked towards being bipartisan." With two sources: Roll Call [4] and Washington Post [5]. I'm concerned that the sources don't verify the information as presented in the lead. The Roll Call article says "Once known for her progressive politics, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema has coasted to the center in her first re-election," "The freshman bills herself as bipartisan," and "On the campaign trail, Sinema stresses her work across the aisle." This would seem to indicate that she's presenting herself as bipartisan as a campaign strategy, not that she has in fact become more bipartisan. The article doesn't say she has "moved toward the centre" or "worked towards being bipartisan." The Washington Post article has one mention of bipartisanship: "Sinema’s gestures toward bipartisanship haven’t endeared her to some progressives." I don't think that's strong enough to verify the information currently contained in the lead. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Moved towards the centre" and "coasted to the centre" mean the same thing, I just changed it because the latter sounds clumsy. Roll Call also reports her saying "I’m working to make it cool to compromise in Congress" and says that "Sinema joined the Blue Dog Coalition and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. She boasts about her work with conservative Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., on veterans’ legislation", so there is actual bipartisan legislation she has worked on, as opposed to just saying on the campaign trail that she's done so. The Washington Post also quotes a Republican state lawmaker on her evolution in style. As both sources state that she was initially a "bomb throwing" progressive, we can't not mention her move to the centre, which is also supported lower in the article: the National Journal's 2013 Vote Ratings placed her "near the center of their liberal-conservative scale". Tiller54 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There's also this Arizona Central piece which says "As a freshman, Sinema has played her cards expertly, said GOP political consultant Bert Coleman. Sinema’s political stances years ago were much more liberal, Coleman said, but in Washington, she has carved a more bipartisan path." Tiller54 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kyrsten Sinema. 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: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Kyrsten Sinema's statements on stay-at-home mothers

There have been a few edits recently removing the last sentence of Kyrsten Sinema's quote, along with citations to it:

These women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing the checks is some sort of feminism because they're choosing to live that life. That's bullshit. I mean, what the fuck are we really talking about here?

— Kyrsten Sinema

The quote was taken from an interview with Scottsdale nightlife magazine 944. It was used against Sinema in a 2012 campaign ad, mentioned in Phoenix New Times, and sparked enough controversy that ABC15 News investigated its accuracy. I'd like to hear any arguments as to why the sources for this information should be excluded, or evidence that the full quotation is not relevant. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to any one of the sources that specifically shows that the last two sentences and Sinema's use of profanity were a source of controversy, versus the first sentence and Sinema's characterization of stay-at-home mothers? If not, then I say again that the first sentence (which is also sourced here) is more than adequate to explain the controversy, and the last two sentences add no insight to the section nor any value to the article. There is no policy here that quotations cannot be truncated to include only the portions necessary to illustrate the relevant point being made by the speaker (provided they continue to do so after truncation), and in fact it's encouraged that we do so. General Ization Talk 23:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Tend to agree with General Ization. I don't see a particular value in including more of the quote. We could verge into WP:UNDUE territory there, where we could and should be summarizing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Except that with controversial material, using quotes is explicitly recommended (See: WP:QUOTE). There was a televised campaign against Sinema for her statement, as well as an ABC15 investigation into said advertisement, so it's inclusion is not WP:UNDUE. I'm honestly a little frustrated that I need to explain how ending a sentence with "That's bullshit" completely changes the tone. --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
And either way you are using a quote, versus paraphrasing (which is what WP:QUOTE is talking about). We have no disagreement regarding the value of using a quote; the question is how much of her commentary to quote. General Ization Talk 02:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kyrsten Sinema. 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: 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) 09:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism Banking co-sponsor Bill

http://www.wbtv.com/story/36072065/congressman-budd-has-first-bill-signed-into-law

Teamed up with freshman is of note.--Wikipietime (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kyrsten Sinema. 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: 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) 01:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kyrsten Sinema. 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: 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) 00:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Military spending

The Foreign Policy segment states that Sinema "supports reducing defense spending". As far as I can tell, this is based on a 2012 questionnaire that she participated in. In any case, it seems in stark contrast to her current website, which states that she "consistently votes for funding for our troops and national security", and that she "will continue to support commonsense, bipartisan legislation that provides needed increases in military funding". Moismyname (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we allowed to list political positions, sourced to RS?

One editor says no.[6] I say yes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing what I said. I said we shouldn't include pledges and promises of candidates. They say they will do lots of things--it's my position that we should focus more on what people actually do than what they say they'll do. Otherwise we could simply be regurgitating campaign promises, which are a dime a dozen, rather than building encyclopedia articles about noteworthy things that actually happen. You well know that just because something was "covered in RS" doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. That's not our standard for inclusion; content must also meet WP:WEIGHT standard. The content you've added here is briefly and incidentally mentioned in an article that's not even mostly about Sinema, so it's unclear why it would be notable enough to include here. Marquardtika (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
That's just your own arbitrary and [I would bet] extremely inconsistent view as to "what matters in politics". It's completely detached from WP:DUE. If a congressional candidate says he wants to exterminate gays, we wouldn't remove it just because of the made-up rule "we don't include preferences and pledges". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Could you try to discuss content without personalizing the dispute? It's unnecessary and unproductive to cast aspersions. Wikipedia isn't Twitter, we don't mindlessly repeat anything and everything RS has every said. We need to use editorial discretion to decide what is noteworthy and consequential in the long run, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. What I'm saying here is that the source you've provided, which has one incidental sentence on Synema making a pledge about Medicaid, doesn't look notable enough to me to include at this time. Is there another source discussing this issue more widely? Has it been repeated elsewhere? Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

lead

Putting her sexuality into the lead isn't appropriate until this article has a substantial length. It is demeaning to make it appear as if sleeping with women is her only notable or most important "accomplishment". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It does merit mention in the article though. I have added a sentence about it. NW (Talk) 19:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's always been in the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Where, besides where I just added it? NW (Talk) 20:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Used to be at least; seems like someone took it out... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's all over the lead. In the last four sentences, it appears three times. CsikosLo (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel it does merit be in the lead because it distinguishes her, as she's the first openly bisexual member of Congress. I don't see it as "demeaning," as it's not an attack or anything, she's a first. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
No; she is known for being a hard-working progressive politician whose accomplishments are an asset for Arizona. Sleeping with women is not one of them, and therefore not lead-worthy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sensing a bit of bias... It doesn't matter whom she sleeps with, the fact she is elected was a first in US history, which is an inspiration for LGBT globally because she is actively changing American society and the US Congress, which just a few decades ago was comprised entirely of heterosexuals. I might also add that Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Mark Takano (just to name a few) have this same information in their leads. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, I feel I should also add that in Mazie Hirono's lead it states she's the first Female, Asian-American Senator; Tim Scott's lead states he's the first southern African-American Senator since reconstruction; and that Barack Obama's lead it states he's the first African-American US President. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
No. As long as none of her accomplishments are in the lead, this doesn't belong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. For some reason I think you believe that the fact of stating she's bisexual is somehow a negative POV. And as long as you're mentioning that, why don't you just add her accomplishments to her lead? She has done plenty, this should be a no-issue. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop the personal attacks against me, or the conversation will be over quickly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It was never my intent to attack or offend you, and I'm sorry if I did. I just want to make sure that the fact Sinema is the first bisexual elected to Congress to be protected in her article, and that sexual orientation is never a negative subject matter in articles. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Pay attention to my argument: when what someone is or happens to be is the only major thing pointed out about them, rather then saying what someone has done or accomplished — that's negative indeed. Now — this article is rather short. True, I could simply repeat all her major accomplishments in the lead, but that would make it repetitive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on short articles lately, I'll try to beef up the lead in a meaningful way either today or tomorrow. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with that; in an AZ context, her support of the DREAM act was a much bigger deal than her sexuality; so was her support of same-sex marriage and civil unions. The fact that she won despite her opponent's vicious campaign against her and the shitload of "pagan hippie"-flyers that flooded our mailboxes is also noteworthy. That should definitely be in an appropriate lead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

K File

Something from this https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/kfile-kyrsten-sinema-activist-past/index.html should be added here. K File pieces are included on many pages of GOPers, so why not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.81.157 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done You seem to be right that every other KFile, at least about someone with a Wikipedia article, looks to have been added to Wikipedia already. But KFile and other such sources are only systemically added to the pages of Republicanz, don't you know. Marquardtika (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

lawsuit

[7] I don't know the current status of this, now that the counting lead has switched. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Simena was called the winner with all but .8% of Pima county's (about 3,000 ballots) vote in, and she could be expected to add another 500 or so to her substantial (50,000+ votes) lead there. Yuma county, much smaller, had counted all but about 1,000 votes, 2.27%, and McSally had a much smaller lead there, so could be expected to pick up less than 70 more votes. The prospects of a suit that would overturn a lead of over 32,000 votes would seem to be extremely remote. Activist (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Something should be said about that time she summoned witches to her anti-war protest.[8] Also added to this section should be Sinema's past comments that she was "ok" with Americans joining the Taliban to help them fight against America.[9] Maye a few sentences each should be fine. Additionally I'm surprised there is nothing about that time that she trashed her own state as a "meth lab of democracy," but that's definitely another controversy to add to this section.[10] 99.50.80.96 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Howdy Hello! Currently this article, nor her opponent Martha McSally have a "Controversy" section. With political candidates we always have a rough time deciding what should and shouldn't be talked about. On Wikipedia we believe in a neutral viewpoint and impartiality. The article already goes into her history of anti-war activism and the evolution of her position. It also mentions how her opponent called her out for pagan activities in a prior election. Folks, feel free to disagree with me, but I think saying "she summoned witches" is not accurate at all nor should we denigrate pagan religious practice. I don't think that coverage is WP:DUE and feels WP:SENSATIONAL. I'd like to see another source talk about it, perhaps a more reliable one than the observer (which is intriguingly owned by Jared Kushner). The CNN and Hill articles do cover the claims mentioned, and notes they come from her rivals, without really providing substantiation of the claims. The Hill even notes that the "meth lab" quotes appear to have been taken out of context from a heavily edited video released by McSally. I'd like to see more sources before we even consider adding it to the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
McSally's campaign apparently became desperate as her prospects grew dimmer. Sinema was referring to and pointing at an off screen chart, full quote (with my bolding) from the The Hill is: "The video is heavily edited as to remove further explanation for the quote. 'I cannot take credit for that line. Somebody at the Daily Show wrote it. But I'm happy to steal it and use it all the time,' Sinema goes on to say. In a tweet, McSally's campaign wrote that Sinema's comment was evidence of how the Democrat 'mocks' her home state." I expect the other allegations are equally silly. "...the mountain groaned and brought forth a mouse." Sinema won by over 32,000 votes, 1.5%. The voters have spoken, it seems, rather emphatically. Activist (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Recognizing victory

Outlets have been announcing for over a day that she has won. At what point do we edit to reflect her as senator-elect?Dogru144 (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw it declared today. So, as of today. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Just for future reference, we don't denote a person as having won on here just because media outlets are stating that she's likely to win, which is all anybody was saying "over a day" ago. We wait until a formal victory call has been issued by external sources, which finally occurred in Sinema's case only a few hours ago. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Concession by the opposing candidate is pretty decisive, and that happened this evening in this particular case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment to check it and memorialize it, if it hasn't been done, but after a hard fought race, and the DC rants about "fraud," McSally's video concession was very classy I thought, and one commentator I saw noted that behavior. Activist (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I read some coverage suggesting the reason she didn't push the "voter fraud" narrative we've been seeing in Florida is because McSally was guaranteed a Senate seat no matter what, so why go down that road? Jon Kyl is a placeholder and they can give the seat to McSally now that she didn't win Flake's. So, I wouldn't make too much of McSally's concession, as it is the way politics should be, and she may have had an ulterior motive for not going scorched earth. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kyrsten Sinema

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kyrsten Sinema's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Generalelection":

  • From Catherine Cortez Masto: "Silver State Election Night Results 2016". Nevada Secretary of State. November 8, 2016. Retrieved December 20, 2016.
  • From 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona: "2016 General Election November 8, 2016 Unofficial Results". Arizona Secretary of State. November 8, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  • From Tom Udall: "Official Results General Election - November 4, 2014". New Mexico Secretary of State. November 4, 2014. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
  • From Richard Blumenthal: "2016 General Election November 8, 2016 Official Results". ct.gov. December 15, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  • From Tammy Duckworth: "Illinois General Election 2014". Illinois State Board of Elections. November 4, 2014. Retrieved February 24, 2015.
  • From 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona: "2016 General Election November 8, 2016 Unofficial Results". azsos.gov. November 8, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  • From Jerry Moran: "2016 General Election Official Results" (PDF). Kansas Secretary of State. November 8, 2016. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

Reference named "Primaryelection":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Former Christian?

She's a former member of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, but does that in itself make her a former Christian? It's debatable whether Mormons should be considered Christians, to many followers (and detractors) they're a distinct fourth Abrahamic faith. Is there a Wikipedia convention on this?--MartinUK (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Youngest female senator in history

Elected at 42, I'm fairly certain that makes her the youngest woman ever to be elected to the US Senate, although I'm having trouble finding sources to validate this. Does someone have a source on this or know this to be incorrect? If I am correct, surely that's noteworthy enough to be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.92.134.191 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree this would be noteworthy if it's true, but I also can't find any sources to confirm it. Marquardtika (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean really it's not hard to confirm, there have only been 57 female senators and if you go through them you seem that all of them except Sinema were older than 42 when they took office. The Wikipedia page about women in the senate even lists their age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate). But for some reason I can't find an outside source that talks about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.92.134.191 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Then you could add the sentence "When she took office, Sinema was the youngest woman ever elected to the Senate." and cite it with a footnote (Template:efn) saying "See the article on Women in the United States Senate." But if someone argues that since there are no outside sources commenting on it, the mere fact of being the youngest isn't inherently notable, it may be removed. Superlatives are generally supported, though, so it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Gun Owners of America rating

the article states that "The Gun Owners of America (GOA) have given her a "D" rating", but the source provided doesn't indicate it. the only "D" there is party affiliation. I think it's a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.122.61 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right. There are no letter grades in that source, only "R" for Republicans and "D" for Democrats. I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wig wearing

The article talks about her choice to wear colorful wigs while conducting her work as a senator. This choice is explained as being a political expression – being a way "to emphasize the importance of social distancing" during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the topic is discussed in the "Personal life" section. In my opinion, something that she does for a political reason as part of the conduct of her work as a senator is part of her public life, not personal life. Thus, if this information is important enough to include in the article, I suggest that it should be moved to a different section. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, although it is something political, she does it because she personally wants to social distance. Social distancing isn't something political, it is literally standing 6 feet away from someone. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

wrong IPA symbol in name transcription

In the transcription of her first name, there is an [r] but it should be [ɹ]. The [r] is a voiced alveolar trill like in Spanish, but American English does not have this sound. The transcriber was probably just using orthography instead of the correct symbol.

Ajroyer (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not wrong, it's written as part of the unit [ɪər] (try hovering!), which in AmEng is "ear". Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"denying working women a living wage"

@Locke Cole: The Newsweek source [11] does not quote Nina Turner or anyone else saying that Sinema is sexist for "denying working women a living wage". Are you looking at some other source? Where does this statement come from? Please provide exact quotations. Einsof (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Denying women a living wage is sexist," retorted Ohio Democratic congressional candidate Nina Turner in a tweet Friday evening. Turner's response brings to light how the federal minimum wage is as much of a feminist issue as ridiculing a woman's body language. Raising the minimum wage would be a direct benefit to 19 million women, according to the Center for American Progress (CAP). The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women, forcing them to choose between paid work and unpaid domestic labor, such as homeschooling children. Increasingly, women have been forced to leave the workforce as a result of that choice, according to a report released Thursday by the International Monetary Fund. CAP argues that a $15 minimum wage would bolster women in the workforce. Twenty-three percent of women who would get a raise are Black and Latina women who have been significantly affected by the pandemic, holding a large portion of low-wage jobs that pay either $7.25 an hour or above. This would translate to an annual raise of $3,700 in wages for Black and Latina women and $3,500 on average for women. If Congress had passed the amendment, 1 in 4 women would have gotten a raise. Seven million women who are essential workers would also experience a hike in pay. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And to be clear, if your issue is with her not directly saying "working" women: 1) it is not a direct quote, but rather a summary of the response, and 2) it is implied as the minimum wage does not apply to women who do not work. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I see the issue here: you've confused the currently cited Newsweek article [12] with another Newsweek article [13] that isn't cited. In any case, this kind of language requires attribution and we should probably just quote Turner directly. Einsof (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
We probably should not quote Turner at all. Her statement isn't neutral. She's a candidate for office, so has every reason to twist these things. We should just stick to the facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree on not citing Turner at all. A lot of people called Sinema out, I don't know why an Ohio politician is the one we cite instead of say, an Arizonan. A simple factual assessment that she voted against the bill should suffice. Also, I have merged the bit out of the tenure section, as it was a fork of the minimum wage section. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Turner should be cited, but it needs to be put into proper context. As you said many people called Sinema and her spokesperson out not only for the vote but also the statement that "commentary on her clothes and demeanor was sexist," so the text should reflect that, with Turner's quote being used as an example of the latter criticism. As the section read now, it gives the impression that Turner was the lone voice of criticism. Or we could remove the statement from her spokesperson and the response to it altogether I suppose. Leaving that statement in the article without mentioning the response to it seems inappropriate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't belong in the political positions section. The thumbs down, the cake, and the handbag aren't political positions, yet they are all notable points that are necessary for understanding the coverage of this episode in the sources. (For the same reason, "a simple factual assessment that she voted against the bill" does not suffice.) Similarly, John McCain's thumbs-down no vote on repealing the ACA appears as part of a narrative of his senate tenure, rather than being shoehorned into a section on his views on healthcare. Einsof (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with the "Minimum wage" section moving, but it shouldn't be covered in two different places. Makes the article look sloppy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The featured articles Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney, among others, both have "Political positions" sections that cover some of the same topics that occur in the narrative sections on their political careers. There's nothing wrong with it and I don't really see a great way to shift all the relevant material into one section or the other. Einsof (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not for or against the direct quote, though I do feel like the original language (minus the DINO fluff which does not appear in any source I'm aware of) summed up the latter part of the Newsweek source I cited above. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Her statement doesn't need to be neutral, there is no policy that it be. Our burden is whether or not it's relevant (it is, as it directly responds to a claim by the Sinema team), neutral (in the sense that we provide a balanced view, ideally as balanced as our sources), notable (it is, it's been quoted in Newsweek, at least, and likely elsewhere) and doesn't run afoul of BLP. NPOV applies to our articles and their tone, and not discussing the reaction to the claim of sexism would be the non-neutral violation you should be concerned about. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Covid relief for undocumented immigrants

One of these duplicate sentences should be removed. Preference would be removal of the last sentence in tha first paragraph below. The sentence stands on its own as the last paragraph below.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a PAC that seeks to limit both legal and illegal immigration, gave Sinema a 33% rating in 2018, and UnidosUS, which supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, gave Sinema a score of 88% in 2014.[147] On February 4, 2021, Sinema voted against providing COVID-19 pandemic financial support to undocumented immigrants.[166]

On March 14, 2019, Sinema voted against Trump's National Emergency declaration on border security.[167]

On February 4, 2021, Sinema voted against providing COVID-19 pandemic financial support to undocumented immigrants.[168] CDRSubkiller82 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. The last sentence of the first paragraph should be removed since it is a redundant duplicate. I suppose I will make that change. Voluntari Tau (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender of former spouse

Why "husband" being removed from reference to her former spouse? Wikipedia is a reference, saving people more Googling. It is valid to have "husband" or "male" in reference to Sinema's former spouse.Dogru144 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyrsten_Sinema/Archive_3&oldid=1136887144"