Talk:Barbara Boxer/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Barbara Boxer. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is this pic a fake?

File:Barbara Boxer, official Senate photo portrait, 2007.jpg really looks like a bad photoshop to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume it is legit, it has been up on the Commons since 2008. Is there somewhere online where official portraits can be found? I did not see anything at her senate website. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether the other pic is a fake or not (I swear it's her face on a man's body, the hands are giving it away to me, plus the attributed source of the pic is questionable), this pic looks much better. I'm going to investigate that other pic this by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:BarbaraBoxer.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:BarbaraBoxer.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:RecentBoxer2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RecentBoxer2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Walsh Incident

A user has requested mediation on this issue. Can the user who requested mediation make sure that this template is placed above the section that requires mediation, then click here to fill in the case page.

Under 'major rehaul' a discussion has been going on regarding the Walsh incident. I invite responses here in this new section. Rodchen (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the incident where the general called Boxer "Miss" and she insisted on being referred to as "Senator". Can you please provide some evidence suggesting a lasting notability of this event? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the general called Boxer 'Ma'am'. As I stated above under 'major rehaul', it is something she is remembered for, just as Joe Wilson is remembered for yelling 'You lie' at Obama. If you google the incident, you will find many web sites referring to it. It led to some interesting events during the campaign and became a bit of a 'campaign issue'. If that is not evidence enough, maybe you could show me proof of how Wilson's 'You lie' is notable. Rodchen (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like it to be considered for inclusion, please provide some reliable sources showing it has lasting notability. Just telling others to Google it isn't sufficient. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Come 'on guys! I have asked numerous times now, how does one 'show lasting notability'? Use Wilson's 'You lie' for example. If an editor opposed including that, how would you 'show lasting notability'. If an editor opposed including the 'potatoe' incident in Dan Qualye's article, how would one show 'lasting notability'? It seems like anything and everything in Boxer's article could be deleted because it doesn't have 'lasting notability'. How does one prove Boxer's appearance on the TV show 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' to be 'lasting notable'? Besides, the Walsh incident was included in the article until two weeks ago. Did something happen two weeks ago that suddenly made it no longer 'lasting notable'? Rodchen (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please show some ~~diffs~~ reliable sources. That would be a good start. Dayewalker (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. It was included in the article before March 24 when Loonymonkey removed it. (Does that answer your question?) Rodchen (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I said "diffs" above when I was asking for reliable sources showing the notability of the incident. Unless you show us some sources, we can't really say whether the incident is still notable enough for inclusion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You can look the history of the Boxer article, and all articles before March 24 will have it included and documented. My question (AGAIN!) (Am I not being clear??) is how do you show notability? If you google 'Barbara Boxer Walsh' you will get scores of web sites. Rodchen (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not simply determined by google hits, but also by impact. You've referenced Joe Wilson a couple times. If you see the section of his article that deals with this incident, Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)#Outburst_during_2009_Presidential_address, you'll see just how fleshed out it is, not only with an explanation of what happened, but also the impact of what happened. In the case of this Boxer thing, I know the incident can be documented, but I don't know that there is any lasting impact that occurred afterwards that makes it notable, and Fiorina using it in campaign ads may be part of it, but in and of itself it's not enough. I think you should read over WP:N to get a better sense of notability. Granted that's about stand alone articles, but it's a good place to start. Its lead links to articles about content of articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And the sourcing would have to change before we could even discuss it. In there previous edit, there were nothing but opinion pieces (by political opponents, no less) which are unacceptable for referencing factual material in a WP:BLP. As for google, Muboshgu is correct, blog posts don't go away, you can always google them, even years later. But that doesn't mean that whatever some partisan blog was chattering about during a single news cycle several years ago has any lasting impact (particularly to a biography). The rules are very strict for any WP:BLP. For this to be included, it would have to be related in some way to Boxer's notability, in other words, it would have to be an integral part of her biography, the exclusion of which would give an incomplete picture. That is clearly not the case here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And to go a little further, I'd say that the "You lie!" incident, at a major presidential address to Congress, is an integral part of Wilson's bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Mobushgo wrote: "I don't know that there is any lasting impact . . . I think you should read over WP:N to get a better sense of notability." The Notability article doesn't say anything about "lasting impact." If anything, it specifically says that a lasting impact is NOT NECESSARY: Quote: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." What Notability article were you reading? Also, Loonmonkey wrote: "it would have to be an integral part of her biography, the exclusion of which would give an incomplete picture." The BLP article says nothing of the kind. So you've both misrepresented (I'm sure unintentionally) two Wikipedia guidance articles. Which means you have yet to provide a valid reason why this isn't notable.--Carbonator (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're starting with the assumption that this is notable and then asking others to prove the negative. That's not how it works. The burden of evidence lies with you, as the editor seeking to add material, to convince the Wikipedia community that this is somehow notable. To your quotes above, the key words are "significant coverage." This doesn't even come close. Brief coverage in a few partisan sources doesn't rise to the level of notability for a BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Many attempts have been made to provide the evidence but it's been rebuffed by you and Mobushgo, who --- as I've noted --- falsely claimed that guidance articles say something they don't say. So you have yet to explain how the evidence ALREADY provided wasn't sufficient. Still waiting for you to explain where exactly the BLP article says that "it would have to be an integral part of her biography, the exclusion of which would give an incomplete picture." Also waiting for Moguhsho to tell us where the Notability article says anything about "lasting impact." Please stop evading the questions. --Carbonator (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Experienced editors often summarize policy, rather than just quoting blocks of text back and forth at each other. Your demands for more policy quotes are meaningless to this discussion because, as stated earlier, it's up to you to justify why this belongs in the article, and you haven't even attempted to do that yet. If you have a valid reason for including this material, we're all ears. Otherwise, there's nothing really left to discuss. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What I would cite in opposition is simple undue weight given to a frivolous, trivial confrontation. You're trying to elevate it into some sort of -gatelike scandal but in reality it is down with Obama's teleprompter usage. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

She was within her right to ask the general to refer to her by the title "senator". This whole situation became a made-up "controversy" used by Republicans for political gain. There was no lasting impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And you're summarizing the policy in a misleading way, Loonymonkey. That's the point. Your failure to point to anything in the BLP article backing up your claims is quite telling. Also, you keep mentioning "lasting impact", Mobushgu, and yet you can't demonstrate that the event has to have had lasting impact. There is nothing in the Notability article saying anything of the kind. P.S. What on EARTH does your opinion about whether she was justified or not have to do with ANYTHING??? Wikipedia explains controversies that occurred, whether one party was justified or not. Please, keep your pro-Boxer opinions out of the discussion. It's really quite inappropriate.--Carbonator (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, undue weight. read at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to respond to, here. You're still just talking about other editors, but not giving any reasons (valid or otherwise) for why this material belongs in the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the Walsh incident was included in the Bio before March 24 when Loonymonkey deleted it, it seems that the burden of proof lies with Loonymonkey to justify deleting it, rather than the editors trying to put it back into the article. Rodchen (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed , and just a friendly reminder to all, Notability only applies to the creation of an article, not the content within it. --BE TA 07:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, burden of proof on a BLP belongs with the editor adding the information. Poorly sourced or unduly weighted information should be removed and discussed before readding. Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well then I will remove the section on 'reproductive rights' because it is not 'notable', partially as a test case, to see how editors prove that it should be included. Rodchen (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I would disagree that I am 'trying to make a point', but I do invite you (or others) to show me how 'notability' is shown. But to 'play according to the rules' I will remove a point which I do truly believe is not notable. Rodchen (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, please read WP:POINT. You've just said that you're making an edit simply to demonstrate a point about another edit. That's completely disruptive. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact this incident played a role in the past election, is still posted multiple times on You-Tube and sort of 'went virial' when it happened, that proves its note-worthiness. Rodchen (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of those actually show notability. Notability is shown through reliable secondary sources, not merely YouTube posts and speculation about something "going viral." Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.exam*iner.com/political-transcripts-in-national/zucker-s-anti-boxer-spoof-ad-climbing-to-viral-10-min-leaps-video While hardly a reliable source for new, the fact the incident was mocked (a year after the fact) in a spoof ad that went viral does show lasting noteability. (Take out the * to check out the site. Wikepedia spam filtered it out. I am not wanting to allow Wikepedia to use this web site for references, but it is helpful for showing notability.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/tag/California+Senate+Races/ shows again it left a significant impact on the campaign, once again showing noteability.

The fact that it is still being discussed and was included in the bio until one editor removed it a few months ago also shows noteability. Rodchen (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that unreliable tabloid rags...especially one that is so reviled as a source on the wikipedia that it's URL had to be blacklisted...are the only ones still talking about it kinda speaks for itself. There's really nothing else to discuss here. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my previous note since you evidently failed to see I included a reference from politicsdaily. Rodchen (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My reading glasses work quite well, my boy, but thanks. A blurb in a blog during the senate race doesn't amount to much either. You're not going to get this into the article, under any circumstances, so move on to other matters, please. Tarc (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

More information As predicted, this was all just trolling by yet another sockpuppet. Not for the last time, probably.... ...

As predicted, this was all just trolling by yet another sockpuppet. Not for the last time, probably....

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Major re-write to Ma'am incident

I've rewritten the section on the incident to remove pov and include three new tertiary reliable sources. It also deals with the public reaction to give a more accurate description of it. Most sources seem to find it humorous. --BE TA 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It was determined by consensus here that this situation was WP:UNDUE and not helpful for this BLP. If you want to consider WP:BRD, you were bold to reinsert this information, but after the revert, you insisted on readding it rather than waiting for consensus to support your edit in discussion. Stop readding this incident without gaining consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember what NPOV says: Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted. --BE TA 19:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:DRNC :o) --BE TA 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there is no NPOV violation on the talk page, so I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is removing talk page content. Secondly, there isn't "no consensus" on this material. There is a CLEAR consensus to not include this material, which you attempted to violate by reverting the reversions of Dayewalker and myself. You still haven't indicated any reason to include this material, nothing that would undo the past consensus that was formed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it says "moved to the talk page", not from the talk page. It's really about edits made in Article Space. Just a thought. --BE TA 20:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since one editor is attempting to subvert consensus by preventing others from seeing the contribution, and making their own judgments here it is:

Boxer In Humor and Satire

Don't Call Me Ma'am

In 2009, Senator Boxer importuned a general not to call her "ma'am", but to refer to her by her title. The dialogue occured during Brigadier General Michael Walsh's testimony regarding the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. ^[1] This conversation became the subject of humorous parody and satire. A political opponent sponsored an advertisement "comparing her to Dr. Evil from the “Austin Powers” movies complaining when people called him Mister."^[2] A humorous video was subsequently released, that is produced by David Zucker("Airplane"). The video depicts, in hyperbole, people of various employment reacting to her comments, also parodied, by demanding that others call them by their given title of employment.^[3] Capital Hill continues to make light of this incident, several months after the fact^[4] --BE TA 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[1]
"Sen. Boxer to officer: Don't call me ma'am". Washington Times. 2009-06-19. Retrieved 2010-05-25.
[2]
Carlson, Margaret (Jul 6, 2011). "Women's Fights Thrive in Politics: Margaret Carlson". Bloomberg. Retrieved 23 July 2011.
[3]
Malcolm, Andrew (October 25, 2010). "Top of the Ticket". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 July 2011.
[4]
Heil, Emily (June 29, 2011). "Be Careful What You Call Your Boss". Roll Call. Retrieved 24 July 2011.

It's more than "one editor". Your first edit was reverted by Dayewalker. Tarc and Looneymonkey have also been crystal clear in opposing this in any form, if you read the above discussion from two months ago. That's four, by my count. Nothing about this issue has changed in the past two months. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please Stop speaking for other editors, it's not your place. Thank You. --BE TA 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly know they wouldn't appreciate the allegation of subverting consensus being passed on to them by your statements. --BE TA 19:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "humorous and satirical" is just lipstick on the same ol pig. Not gonna happen. Tarc (talk)

If I read you correctly, your main point was that the sources provided in the first account of this incident, were insufficient with regard to truth, and credibility. If I may ask, what is your contention with regard to the new sources I provided.

Regarding your point about weight, If my contribution represents too strong a minority view, please provide me with the majority view complete with reliable sources to back it up. We can then consider putting that into the article. --BE TA 20:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request regarding a majority view makes little sense. The thing is, this is just a minor, throwaway mini-"controversy" that saw some press when it happened, then faded into irrelevance. People have tried to make a beef in the Obama articles about teleprompters, fly-swatting incidents, inspector general firings, and whatnot. Politicians will routinely get criticized by their ideological opponents, though. Not all of it...really, very little of it...is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia bio. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's be constructive then. Please provide reliable sources stating that this has become irrelevant. Anything that says that controversy took place that has since blown over would be fine. I'm agreeable to putting this in the article instead, with some context of course. --BE TA 20:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You're asking people to prove a negative. Doesn't work that way. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the way it works at this stage. The edit is factually correct, and properly sourced. It represents the majority view until you can prove otherwise. The burden is now yours to prove that it doesn't belong. --BE TA 23:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um no, that is not the way it works...at this stage or any other stage. This topic has been discussed for months on this talk page, and the simple fact of the matter is that it has not, at any time, gained consensus. So allow me to explain how it actually works at this stage; if you add this content to the article again, without consensus here, it will be reverted. If you edit war to force it in, you will be taken to the appropriate venue, i.e. WP:3RR, where an administrator will decide the matter. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we avoid this stage all together. Your removal of cited, balanced material has become disruptive. if this behavior continues I WILL take you to ArbCom. You might not like what they say. --BE TA 10:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a fresh round of Wikilawyering. How nice. How about rather than take this directly to Arbcom, you stop edit warring and find someone else who agrees with you first? Dayewalker (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not speaking for other editors as much as I'm speaking for the consensus that we together formed in May 2011. Dayewalker just reverted your edit today. If Tarc and Looneymonkey disagree with me, I will stand corrected, but I don't expect them to be on Wikipedia on a Saturday. Since they were so clear on opposing this attempt to smear Boxer only two months ago, and nothing has changed regarding this incident, you need their consent before you can consider this material okay to include. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See, I wrote that before Tarc beat me to the punch reasserting the consensus. That's three opposed and one in favor. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Note : Please be aware that there is an ongoing discussion on the editing style of BETA at WP:ANI here. Mtking^(edits) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Does that mean we can now ignore the silly crap he writes here and revert without comment any future attempts to add the material to the article? -Rrius (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  - Not quite. It looks like we're in for a round of canvassing first . Dayewalker (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning

Let's get back to basics

The following reasons have been given against inclusion:

Incident is not notable
Incident was not notable
Incident is undue weight
Sources given are unreliable
Feel free to add more here

Arguments Against those reasons

1. Notability only applies to the existance of the article, not it's content.
2. Reliable replacement sources have been acquired and uncontested
3. Significant viewpoints of this incident, that have been published in reliable sources, have been fairly represented.

--BE TA 09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You've said argument #1 several times now, that notability doesn't apply to article content. That's incorrect. WP:N may refer only to article subject notability, however there are many other policy-based criteria to judge which events are noteworthy and encyclopedic. Just because something exists doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article about a subject. Dayewalker (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So your saying that you believe this isn't noteworthy enough. Do you know the specific policy that backs up your opinion? --BE TA 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be undue weight being given to a non-notable incident. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's not notable, how could I find 30 major Secondary sources for it?

Weight says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

Wall Street Journal, MSNBC , Los Angeles Times, Washington Times , Wall Street Journal #2 , ABC Local , San Francisco Examiner , Los Angeles Times , The Sacramento Bee , National Public Radio , Usa Today , NBC, The New York Times , The San Francisco Gate, NBC #2 . ::::

Technically this could stand in it's own article, because "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

--BE TA 15:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Several of your links are about the Boxer-Fiorina campaign and mention the "ma'am" thing in passing. Other than that, the coverage is routine election year coverage of something that one politicians tried to use against another politician. Once the election was over, no one talks about this non-incident anymore. All in all, I find your arguments unconvincing, and do not plans to spend more time repeating myself. Try to add it, and it will get reverted by any one of a variety of editors. That, as they say, is that. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Recycling the same argument into a new topic does little good. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP and the material you've proposed to add doesn't have any biographical implications whatsoever. We don't include every minor barb leveled at a politician by their campaign opponents. If we did, every single political bio would be nothing but a coat rack of criticism. BETA, your argument has already gotten very tedious and you haven't found any support for your position, so in the absence of new information there's not a whole lot left to discuss. As editors move on from this discussion and there are fewer and fewer left to continue disagreeing with you, please don't confuse that with anything resembling agreement or consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, canvassing editors who you believe will agree with you (as you did here) is prohibited behavior and does not affect the outcome of this discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I was giving due notice to someone who was a part of the conversation when it started, that is all. I'm not runnin' around talking to every soapboxer and halfwit on the site. --BE TA 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You "gave due notice" solely to the one editor who might conceivably agree with you, apart from this one who is obviously a complete non-starter. Editors who are interested in an article have it on their watchlist. No wikilawyering. It's canvassing, pure and simple. Cut it out. Voceditenore (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that cute, I've got a stalker/puppy dog. Here's a treat. • --BE TA 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you lay in a supply given this. Voceditenore (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Which are better, the Ḳ•bbles or the B°ts? --BE TA 02:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Attempt At Reasonable Dialogue

Someone keeps making major deletions to the article without discussing it on here, this is not helpful to the decision making process.

Another problem is the fact that quality of arguments made here affect the level of agreement on this page. if a better quality argument is made by less people, it still balances out. My concern is that some editors are making arguments based on how they feel about things, as opposed to logical reasoning. If you feel strongly about something, please make sure the arguments you make in your favor, are of a quality that can be supported by logic. --BE TA 19:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think you have "a better quality argument made by less people"? You've been told to move on in no uncertain terms, and seem to be misrepresenting the above discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your concerns are of no concern to me, quite honestly. You have made you point quite clear,but it has been rejected by a variety of editors. Creating yet another discussion sub-section is pointless. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened to that old ANI thread on BETA? It's gone, and with his reinserting the info a second ago, I'm thinking we need to deal with BETA's inability to work with consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Like you said, as mentioned above some arguments might not stand up to logic, as much as they represent opinions and a general feeling. But we can't let our feelings about someone deter us from doing what's right for the article, right? It needs to be balanced. You mentioned another problem, that fact that some editors are being scared away from the article because of different edit wars and so on. That needs to be resolved.

You also indicated that the above discussion is simply too difficult to understand, let alone restate. Maybe we can do some cleanup with it. All in all I think we can all make this a better article. --BE TA 19:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What "feelings" or "opinions" other editors may or may not hold is, quite frankly, none of your concern. Focus less on ad hominem attacks on what you fantasize are the motivations of editors who disagree with you and focus more on the actual topic, please. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, our personal opinions don't matter. We need to focus on the policies, which are based on broad consensus, to decide whether this belongs here or not. We need to verify these sources, quote them properly, not in a biased way; not synthesize our own points of view into it.

I believe I put forth a general question earlier, can anyone tell me what policy describes what is noteworthy content, and what isn't?

We still haven't gotten a straight answer about that. And I believe it's the main point being discussed here. Some are concerned that it isn't noteable, but can't really seem to show why. If someone could get that it could help support that argument here. --BE TA 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been told on numerous occasions that the concern is giving undue weight to am election-year political squabble. Every single editor who has opposed this material has provided a rationale supported by Wikipedia guidelines and/or policy. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight concerns fairly representing points of view about a particular facet of an article. A secondary concern is giving too much attention to part of the subject with the effect that it prevalence amongst reliable sources is not accurately represented. When there are over 30 reliable sources spanning from coast to coast, the question is no longer IF something should be there, it's how should it be presented to reflect that prevalence. --BE TA 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Where in policy does it state that every anecdote supported by reliable sources merits inclusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bean-counting the number of sources is not a credible argument. Last word; until you can gain a consensus here, re-add this to the article it will be reverted. Simple. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, nobody is taking your bait. The subject has been discussed and consensus is against you. Move on. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Close

Should I re-add info on this? FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Since it was rejected by a wide range of editors, and mostly supported by Bentheadvocate, a now-banned editor, no you should not. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Barbara Boxer/Archive 2

Is this pic a fake?

File:BarbaraBoxer.png Nominated for Deletion

File:RecentBoxer2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Walsh Incident

Major re-write to Ma'am incident

Boxer In Humor and Satire

Don't Call Me Ma'am

Reasoning

Another Attempt At Reasonable Dialogue

PIPA

Regarding reference replacement

dual citizenship?

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Related Articles