Talk:Heidi Heitkamp

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

Pay to play?[edit]

Hi, Arbor8! Why do you think pay-to-play is not notable? That section seems properly sourced and the issue seems very important. Lesbianadvocate (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the back-and-forth of campaign accusations and campaign commercials don't meet the notability requirements to be in an encyclopedia. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's necessarily notable. See WP:NOTNEWS for more. Hopefully that clears things up. Since this is contentious info on a BLP, I'm going to re-remove now, until we have a chance to reach consensus here. Arbor8 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see Lesbianadvocate already removed. If this turns out to be a major issue in the campaign, then I think it should be re-added in the campaign section. Having it in the political positions section seems awkward. Arbor8 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw another major news story in North Dakota. It is a major campaign issue. I don't think notability is in question. However, I think undue weight is. I don't think it makes sense to have this taking up a relatively high percentage of the word count because the rest of the article is underdeveloped.Lesbianadvocate (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are certainly right about having it in the political positions section.Lesbianadvocate (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth[edit]

According to Wall Street Journal, her birth place is Mantador, North Dakota; but congress.org says it is Breckenridge, Minnesota. According to wikipedia, her brother's birth place is also Breckenridge, Minnesota; which is just 19 miles away from Mantador, North Dakota. 19 miles is not a very long distance, so she might have born in a Mantador hospital while her family house was in Breckenridge, but I can't find any source on that, neither any statement by her -or a resume- which indicates her place of birth. I reverted my edits after I saw the WSJ article, so her place of birth shows as Mantador, North Dakota once again with the WSJ reference, but I still think we need more sources on this before. Nimuaq (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems congress.org reference is correct while WSJ is not, acc. to the official U.S. Senate website (senate.gov), her birth place is Breckenridge, Minnesota. The page is edited accordingly. Nimuaq (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health Care[edit]

CFredkin, these are not "quibbles" with the sources you are providing. They are not relevant.

First source: Mentions Heitkamp in passing as the type of Democrat Ted Cruz would need to convince to support his plan. Hypothetical anyway, it didn't come to pass.

Second source: An attack piece by a conservative commentator that doesn't mention how Heitkamp voted, it just blames her for the shutdown.

Third source: Says that she, Hoeven and Cramer voted on party lines, which is not notable. Are you going to insert the same quote about the amendment into the article of every member of the House and Senate? Of course not, because it's not notable. The quote about the shutdown as a whole IS useful, however, as it provides an overview to the whole situation, rather than adding in how she voted on every single amendment. Tiller54 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your original objection to the content was that the votes were not notable. I've provided reliable secondary sources which discuss the votes in question and affirm their significance. They all also mention Heitkamp which affirms her significance with respect to the votes. This was Heitkamp's first opportunity to vote on Obamacare. Her prior statements on the subject during the campaign were just theoretical.CFredkin (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin, a source mentioning Heitkamp in passing is not sufficient to establish the notability of one of over a dozen votes taken by the Senate. Tiller54 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple secondary sources. What does "mention in passing" mean anyway?CFredkin (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what "mention in passing" means? Well no wonder you don't understand why the sources you've provided aren't appropriate. A good example would be one of the sources you provided (this one), which says that Ted Cruz could hypothetically pass his plan by "focusing on senators like North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp, who represent predominately Republican states". That has nothing to do with a) Heitkamp or b) any of the votes she cast. Tiller54 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the article mentions the upcoming vote which establishes its significance. It also mentions Heitkamp, which affirms her significance with respect to the vote.CFredkin (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I'd also like to point out that you dispute all the secondary sources I provided, and then used one of them to justify adding your own vague statement in the article about the votes. That seems a bit contradictory.CFredkin (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article has nothing to do with Heitkamp or how she voted and is entirely hypothetical anyway. The only thing it establishes is that she's a Democrat from a red state.
"Vague statement"? It summarises her position and includes a direct quote from her. How is that in any way vague? What's contradictory is your purging articles for what you consider to be "original research" and "synthesis" and then attempting to use synthesis to add your own original research to this article. Tiller54 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It summarizes her position on a vote that, according to you is not notable, so her statement would presumably not be relevant either. Right?CFredkin (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - CFredkin, please stop using Senate/House votes as original research. Adding minimal sourcing that does not include your wording is not editing in a neutral manner. It seems as if you are making mass changes to many articles and making POV edits. Why not try to improve the project and make the same kinds of changes to both Democratic and Republican elected officials? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[removed]
I agree that the sourcing is not adequate here to support the edits. I did a search and couldn't find any additional sourcing. If anything, there should probably be something about how she was a member of the group that negotiated the basis of the eventual deal since there is sourcing for that. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then presumably, since the vote is not notable, the statement that is referenced to the 3rd source above should also be removed. Right?CFredkin (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is a difference here. Her individual votes on every single amendment that came before the Senate aren't notable, but her position on the shutdown as a whole certainly is. Tiller54 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. So then why mention the vote re defunding Obamacare? That was only one of many votes that were taken during the shutdown. You've just argued above that it's not notable. Also, it seems like the statement that MaximusVeritas added belongs in a different section.CFredkin (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence should probably be changed to say "including attempts to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act" since that better reflects what the source says and makes it clear it's not about just 1 vote. I felt the statement I added belonged in that section, since the shutdown was about Obamacare, though I suppose it could be moved to a new section. - Maximusveritas (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added in "or delay". I'd agree that it belongs in the "health care" section, as the whole thing pertains to the ACA. Tiller54 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Health Care[edit]

Any objections to including the following statement regarding her support for ACA:

Critics have also pointed out that she was a vocal supporter of the legislation in 2010 and claim she expressed no concerns about it until declaring her candidacy for the Senate.[1] CFredkin (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. a) it's not "critics", it's a single critic and b) the fact that she wasn't taking positions on issues when she wasn't running for public office isn't notable. Filling up articles with examples of people not expressing opinions when they weren't running for office and then doing so when they were is pointless. Tiller54 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with changing the text to reference the author's name instead of the generic "critics". However, the point of the statement is that she did express an opinion on the issue, and then changed her stance after she declared her candidacy. That is relevant.CFredkin (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Her alleged change of opinion is already included in the section. And why is it that what this one commentator said is so notable? I'm sure there are people who have criticised every position she's taken, from her support of Keystone XL to her support of gay marriage. Filling up the article with "x criticised her for taking this position" is pointless. Tiller54 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose modifying both statements as follows:

Berg and the NRSC argued that Heitkamp has altered her position on the health care law and was a vocal supporter of it in 2010, citing footage of her at a 2010 rally where she called the bill "a legacy vote."[2][3] David Catanese of Polito claimed that she expressed no concerns about it until declaring her candidacy for the Senate.[4]

CFredkin (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The debate she had with Berg over healthcare really belongs in the section for the 2012 senate election. And you haven't answered my question: why is what this one commentator said so notable? Additionally, the fact that she went from "not running for office and not taking positions on everything" to "running for office and taking positions" isn't notable. Tiller54 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable because he's representing a reliable source. In fact, it's more notable than the claims from Berg and NRSC. He also contacted her and asked her to provide any examples to refute his claim prior to publishing the article. Additionally, the point of the statement is that she had indeed expressed an opinion on the subject, and then changed it after she started campaigning.CFredkin (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a single person criticising her. That in of itself is not notable. The debate with Berg is certainly more notable and should probably be moved to the "2012 election" section, like I said. Tiller54 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's pointing out that she changed her position on the issue. Since the discussion is related to her stance on the ACA, it belongs in the Health Care section. I'm ok with mentioning it in the 2012 Election section also, if you like.CFredkin (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. One person's criticism of her on one position is not notable enough to include even once, let alone twice! Tiller54 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs a separate sentence from what's already there. I think it adds additional support for that existing sentence and maybe you could just alter that sentence to better reflect what it's saying, such as:

Berg and the NRSC criticized Heitkamp for offering unqualified support for the health care law until she ran for the Senate in 2011, citing footage of her at a 2010 rally where she called the bill "a legacy vote" without any criticism.

- Maximusveritas (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've edited accordingly. Thanks for the input.CFredkin (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ David Catanese (23 March 2012). "Heitkamp on health care: past vs. present". Politico. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
  2. ^ Toeplitz, Shira (18 June 2012). "North Dakota: New Heidi Heitkamp Spot Tackles Health Care". Roll Call. Retrieved 5 September 2012.
  3. ^ Mike Nowatzki (28 October 2012). "Poll: 60% in ND oppose Obamacare". The Dickinson Express. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
  4. ^ David Catanese (23 March 2012). "Heitkamp on health care: past vs. present". Politico. Retrieved 17 October 2013.

Gun Control Record and effects of votes[edit]

In 2015 Heitkamp was the only member of her party to cross over and vote against preventing people under terrorism investigation from purchasing firearms or explosives[1]. This law would have stopped the legal purchase of the firearms used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, as the shooter had been under investigation but he FBI as a terrorist.[2] This vote was not made in a vacuum and mention of the repercussions are relevant to the section. Facts are well documented and corroborated by multiple news sources and the Senate record.

References

  1. ^ "S Amdt 2910 Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015". votesmart.org. Retrieved 13 June 2016.
  2. ^ Perez, Evan. "Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, official says". CNN.com. CNN. Retrieved 13 June 2016.

Origin of nickname[edit]

Can anyone find and add an explanation of why she's nicknamed "Heidi"? (My initial guess was that it could just be a shorthand for Heitkamp, but I have no evidence to support that, and it wouldn't explain why her four sisters aren't nicknamed Heidi.) RCTodd (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Heidi Heitkamp. 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) 08:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dakota Pipeline"[edit]

This misstated the name of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and claimed that it goes through native American land. That's false. Not that I expect it to be corrected. This is Wikipedia, after all, and noplace for actual facts.2001:5B0:50D9:C4B8:561:638A:9A04:9227 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heidi Heitkamp. 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) 18:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article might need protection[edit]

@Snooganssnoogans: @DanCherek: @AlsoWukai: As you already noticed, Heidi Heitkamp has been recently made target of a coordinated troll campaign by the alt right hate-group calling themselves the Fandom Menace. This comes in the wake of rumours that former actress Gina Carano is planning on suing her for defamation over criticism of the latter's far right views and her association with members of the alt right. There have already been multiple attempts by IP users to vandalize this page by falsely claiming Heidi Heitkamp has made libelous statements against Gina Carano. It might be a good idea to prevent these trolls from doing it at all in the future. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip IP, I agree and have requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP, and I've added this page to my watchlist in the meantime. DanCherek (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now protected. DanCherek (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Semi protected until April 9. I have first-hand experience with these people. They are far more persistent than that. These are the same trolls who were behind the coordinated dislike bombing of every video posted by the official Star Wars youtube channel for over a month now. They're the reason youtube is considering hiding dislikes on all videos. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a week is standard for an article that hasn't previously been protected, but I'll keep this on my watchlist and re-report if vandalism continues next week, at which point the admin will definitely increase the duration. Feel free to ping me anytime as well if I can be of assistance. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heidi_Heitkamp&oldid=1206208813"