Talk:Barbara Boxer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

intro

wasn't Boxer's first political position on her local school board?

I went ahead and removed the vandalism from 68.190.235.25 and moved a period around. Yay for my first Wiki editing experience. :D

When is Barbara Boxer up for election

Since she was re-elected in 2004, her current term lasts through the 2010 election (six years)

fsufezzik 22:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

A reader would think that Boxer is the least contrverisal Senator in Washington, which is not entirely accurate. Can we include some of the notable criticisms of Boxer? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there are absolutely no criticisms on this page. I think that the fact that she claimed to oppose all foreign ownership of ports when in fact 75% of her state's ports are foreign owned is an example of her ignorance on some issues. I placed that fact in the article and it was promptly deleted, but no one has said it was false.

The statement above is entirely unfair and biased. The author of the statement claims that Boxer is ignorant on some issues because she's against foreign-owned ports and yet some of CA's ports are foreign-owned. Counter to that biased claim of 'ignorance', I would say that it shows that she is obviously trying to change the foreign-ownership of CA's ports and the nation's ports, following her own stated beliefs. As most of us on wikipedia know, a Senator is not the dictator of their individual state and does not have ultimate authority to configure their state however they would like.

I think we should include notable criticisms, which means ones that can be sourced rather than ones proposed (for the first time) on this page. Anyone have any sourceable criticisms of Ms. Boxer?

POV

Having earned a reputation as an unabashed liberal, Boxer is generally regarded as a more divisive figure than California's other Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein.

This is terribly POV. It could possibly be changed to read: "Boxer has earned a reputation as an unabashed liberal, quite unlike her more moderate fellow California Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein." --Revolución (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

POV surprises you? The entire profile was written by the Barbara Boxer political campaign!206.195.19.42 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can you substantiate this claim? --Entropee (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Partisan and divisive are different things. It is not true that she is the most divisive figure.

where does it say "most divisive"? 'more' and 'most' are not synonyms. Anastrophe 07:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

fluff, bloat

This article is filled with fluff unrelated to her status as a US senator. it's also bloated. frankly, it reads like a campaign brochure. i've done my best to remove redundant wording and simplify overlong descriptive texts, but it's still much longer than most entries for - by and large - a senator lacking significant controversy (see kerry, kennedy, santorum, byrd, etc). Anastrophe 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

ah. i see now that in fact most of this article really is directly from her own official website - http://boxer.senate.gov. while i'm sure there's no copyright involved in reproducing materials written at taxpayer expense, i seriously question the propriety of doing so. her official site is also her partisan site - you will not find a single word critical of her there. most of this article is strongly biased in her favor - POV. i think a POV tag should probably be applied, but better would be to revert the page to the one immediately before the wholesale inclusion of all this fluff, back in october. Anastrophe 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

user baas, please explain your near wholesale reversion of my edits. most of what you have restored is highly POV, and as such not acceptable in an encyclopedia article. Anastrophe 18:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

further review of user kevin baas's reversions shows almost no care for keeping the article NPOV. most of the edits i performed removed weasel wording that is unsourceable, except as being direct lifts from boxer's own senate website, which is essentially a campaign brochure - highly partisan, not NPOV. as well, the majority of my edits were to remove redundant wording that adds nothing to the article; wording that does not conform to good editorial practice; and wording that does not conform to other entries for political figures (it is unnecessary to repeat throughout the article "barbara" as her first name, nor "senator" for all those entries that are implicitly referring to her current tenure as a senator). reverting wholesale is not good practice. please discuss your justifications for the reversion of these changes, specifically, before doing so again.Anastrophe 19:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

also, please review entries for other political figures. you will see that this article - even after my edits to trim the laudatory wording - is still a virtual bouquet of roses to this senator, rather than an NPOV encyclopedia entry. Anastrophe 19:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I found that your intentions were good, but you were a bit overzealous. Some wording that you may have considered laudatory was just informative. For instance, comprehensive: "Comprehensive test ban treaty" - comprehensive can be an accurate, neutral descriptor, and it is interesting information. The Patriot Act is comprehensive - and although I think the Patriot Act is over-reching just like the Alien-Sedition Acts, and that this is just a repeat of a mistake we make every time there's a war like this, that we haven't learned from, I would nto object to calling it comprehensive, though I would object to the removal of that adjective. In any case, there was a lot of useful information trimmed, and I tried to put it back in, while preserving your elimination of rhetoric.

Regarding "Barbara" - I was preserving your trimming for the first half, but when i got to a certain point, a did a wholesale reversion of the remainder. I imagine you did a compromise semi-revert, I'll take a look at it and we can work together on getting something not-so-campaignish that still preserves usefull information. Kevin baas 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

i restored almost all of my previous edits. rather than reverting virtually the whole of them, please edit the specifically problematic portions, as you noted above. i believe, with regard to 'comprehensive', it's use is valid for such things as the 'comprehensive test ban treaty', simply because that's the formal name of the treaty. Anastrophe 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also say that, among other things, the Patriot Act was comprehensive. Kevin baas 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• This article is way too long and the information is way too biased. I like the woman, being one of her constituents and having voted for her, but the article presents no other POV. I'm sure she's not THAT perfect! We need to trim this article down considerably.Kiwidude 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm making another run at trimming this. there are a great many references to her having voted for xyz bill, offering amendments, or introducing bills in the past. these activities are the daily business of congress, and by no means notable for an encyclopedia. legislation introduced, and passed, is notable. significant amendments that are passed along with legislation are notable. Anastrophe 20:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation for paragraph?

Is there a citation for this? It's very interesting, and should definely be cited if there is one and removed if not.

However, Boxer also was deeply involved in the House bank scandal in which congressmen, herself included, wrote bad checks in large amounts, an issue that the Sacramento Bee covered in a Mar. 1, 1992 article quoting Boxer as admitting she didn't pay enough attention to her House bank account. More specifically, that meant 143 bad checks totaling $41,417 over a three-year period that she had written on the House bank.

Kevin Baas^talk 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

would someone be so kind as to modify 3.2

Section 3.2, although undoubtedly central to the encyclopedic integrity of the article, thirteen subsections seems a bit too much. A person more familiar with the Senator/policies, needs to come through and condense it, chronologicaly..something. Thanks.Nmpenguin 23:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No Child Left Behind

The following statement was removed, and should be reinstated if and when a source can be cited: This claim, however, has been proven false and the vast majority of the federal funding has been mismanaged at the State levels across the country. (regarding the Senator's claim that No Child Left Behind was underfunded)71.104.120.180 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Recess appointment is constitutional

Someone has claimed that saying that recess appointment is constitutional is POV. No. The Wikipedia article on recess appointment (which is linked to in the section) says that it's explicitly in the Constitution. It's not debateable; under the current Constitution, recess appointment is explicitly constitutional, look in the recess appointment article to see where. So, I'm changing it back. This is not a POV statement. It is a purposely avoided fact. PLease discuss here if you want me to stop reverting, comments encouraged, thanks. 68.59.61.191 15:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya, duh it's constiutional. Who's disputing that? It's begging the question. Just link recess appointment to recess appointment in the article and anyone who doesn't have a middle school education (or comes from a bad school) can find out that it's unconstitutional. It's not purposely avoided, it's just not sufficiently interesting and important, which makes it POV. It's POV because it suggests that some argue that it's not constitutional, which is building a straw man. Kevin Baas^talk 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... no, no straw man, just mentioning that it's constitutional to avoid wrong impressions. You're assuming I'm using this article to argue and persuade, when I'm just using it to inform. You can't just say it's "straw man" because I said something that someone could possibly disagree with. I mean, if I had said "some people said it was wrong" or whatever, then maybe, but I didn't. By that logic, the whole article assumes that there are people alleging that Barbara Boxer is not a senator, has never done anything important, and doesn't even exist; the article suggests that some argue that Barbara Boxer is a figment of media imagination, and is building a straw man to refute this, saying she does indeed exist. You see what I mean? You're taking a three word phrase and seeing paragraphs of information that just aren't there. And the whole begigng the question accusation falls right in there; what am I assuming is correct here? That it's constitutional? I know that's not it, you said yourself it's not an assumption, it's the truth. So what am I assuming? What "question" am I begging (I don't think that's the right way to say it, but you get hwat I mean)?

I think you're seeing more to these three words than there really is. All I'm doing is mentioning that it's COnstitutional in order to avoid false impressions. I'm a pretty bright guy, but when I first read it it looked like Bush had done something wrong, until I read the recess appointment article, so it's not just pre-middle school kids that could be duped, especially with the usage of the word "bypassed" in the same sentence, a word with bad connotation. My words add nothing but clarity, and there are no agenda-motivated assumptions behind them. I think you're assuming that I'm assuming a lot more than I'm really assuming. At least, that's what I assume you're assuming. HAHAHAHA 68.59.61.191 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are just more logical fallacies. firstly, the point is that nobody is allegeding that it's unconstitutional. The chance that someone would get the wrong impression is negligible, and the article does not state or imply that it is unconstitutional, you're trying to fix something that ain't broke. but the impression that what you want to add gives people is that some people do have the wrong impression, which is not true or at best, original research. unless you can provide some sort of references to verify that ppl think or have said that it's unconstituional, it's a straw man fallacy. This article is not a straw man fallacy because there are people who don't know this stuff about barbara boxer, that's what an encyclopedia is for. on the content must meet the criteria of interesting and important, by common sense AND according to policy. That it's constitutional is obvious, and in general actions are assumed to be legal unless otherwise contested, because if there was any dispute it certainly would be interesting and important and be in the article. but whoa and behold, there isn't any dispute on this point in the article. so unless you can find a significant dispute and put it in the article per policy, then you're stating something that the reader is expected to assume, and therefore being redundant, making them think: "why is this mentioned?" "oh, they must be trying to clear up a common misconception." Thus, it implies that there's a common misconception. But the problem is there isn't. Kevin Baas^talk 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you can't just "POWERWORD: LOGICAL FALLACY" me and expect me to just curl up and obey. You're entire objection relies on the assumption that I'm using this article to argue and persuade. People would only assume that it's a dispute just because it's mentioned if they were on guard for phrases that are aimed to persuade. If this were some kind of persuasive web page, it would be an issue, but it's just an informative encyclopedia, mentioning an uncommon occurence, recess appointment. What percentage of people do you think know right off the bat that recess appointment even exists, much less is an specific constitutional right of the president?

This isn't some jab that "makes it clear" that it's not unconstitutional, as I've already stated (and was ignored; perhaps you're thinking I'm not being honest?); it's just the inclusion of a fact, nothing more. It's no different than saying Boxer's a Democrat. Is that disputed? Are people getting the wrong impression by reading the article that her political orientation is in dispute? Or the fact that she's form California, do people also think that's in dispute? Have people been confused and befuddled by these statemtents? Not likely. Including something doesn't automatically imply that it's in dispute, especially something explicit and unarguable, such as Barbara Boxer's political preference, her state of origin, or the constitutionality of recess appointment. The reason I included, as I'll say again, is to mention that it's in the Constitution, because it's not as well-known as, say, veto power. I think it's overestimating the average reader (who is not, I'm guessing, a political figure article editor) to "expect them to assume" that it's in the Constitution. You say I need a source saying people could get the wrong impression? I could just as easily ask you for one saying they won't be, so that really doesn't cut it. The inclusion of a simple modifier phrase like this is not a POV statement, and couldn't be interpreted to imply a dispute by anyone who is not specifically looking to dispose of any words that make the President's actions seem valid or legal. This is a simple inclusion of a fact aimed at giving a very brief description of where the authority for a recess appointment originates, something that is not likely to be common knowledge, since recess appointments for Supreme Court justices are rare, and generally not brought into the media spotlight.

Look, bottom line is there's plenty of stuff in this article that lots of people know: her state, her party, her stances on several issues, etc.; that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included anyway. Besides, this isn't even something that widely known, so there should be no problem with including it. Maybe you should do a little more assuming of good faith before you start accusing me of including a simple modifier as part of an agenda to start a mass rumor about a question of the constitutionality of Bush's recess appointment. By the way, any outside opinions would be most welcome here. 68.59.61.191 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Her state, party and stances on issues are important pieces of information in an article about her, not throwaway factoids like what you are edit warring to retain in this article. There are innumerable unimportant descriptors we could add to facts everywhere. An encyclopedia article wouldn't bother itself saying say "Barbara Boxer, whose hair is wavy," even though it's true. We also don't say "... the senator from California, which has many mountain ranges," even though it's true. Similarly there's no need for this. Anybody curious about recess appointments' basis in law can click on the article on recess appointments. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, by that logic, why is this snippet even in there in the first place? It's a recess appointment, linked to Bush, linked to the judge, linked to Barbara Boxer. I may not like it, but if it's too obscure to describe, it's to obscure to even include. After all, just as you wouldn't say "Barbara BOxer has wavy hair", you wouldn't say "Barbara BOxer has hair" with no adjective. If it's not even important to label as constitutional, it shouldn't stand there, disallowed from being modified with a simple phrase, forcing people to make their own conclusions. If it can't be clarified, it shouldn't be included. 68.59.61.191 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV?

Exactly WHAT is POV about this? "Critics of Boxer's economic policies say that they would actually do more harm than good to the economy, citing the works of economists such as Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman which argue that the less the government interferes in the economy, the more prosperous and developed the economy becomes." I'm afraid to inform the writers of this article that just because they disagree with something doesn't mean that it is POV.

In addition, I am curious as to why someone deleted this comment.

Add that to the criticism section but it must be clear that above is only a view of a few economists. This should not be presented as a truth. There are many completely different views on this topic by many scientists. - Darwinek 11:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the above is only the view of a "few" economists. In addition, I am not writing it as if it were a "truth." I wrote it in a NPOV manner, stating that there are economists (particularly very prominent and influential ones) that would say her policies would harm, rather than benefit, the economy. "Critics of Boxer's economic policies say..."

Article assessed as "B"

Very good article, but needs a little cleanup in terms of refrences. Some come out as references, some come out as hyperlinks within the text. Consider submitting this for a Wikibiography peer review, and nomination for GA. That way you'll get a lot more impartial feedback. Jeffpw 11:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Unbalenced article

I added the unbalanced tag because

1. This article is not comprehensive - it skirts politically active issues such as drug control, which I know are important to this politician.
2. This article is not NPOV. It only has positive aspects of this politician - it reads like a campaign flyer.

Please do not remove the tag until serious work has been completed on this article -- readers should have fair warning.

St.isaac 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

removed the following text from section "Bills and Policy Positions"

Islamophobia In late 2006, Senator Boxer angered the interfaith and civil rights communities in California after rescinding an award to a local Muslim activist Basim Elkarra due to allegations from from an extremist right-wing and pro-Israel blogger. If Not Now, When? [1]

This incident has nothing to do with her bills, voting records, policies etc. Unlike its heading "Islamophobia," the section is only about how she rescinded an award to a Muslim not about her stances on the Muslim community. I would also like to say that it seemed POV. Its articles are also from Muslim POV, and one of them is an editorial. mirageinred 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this article comes from a more NPOV. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384987/site/newsweek/ Whether her action was justified or not, this section doesn't fit very well into "bills and policy positions." mirageinred 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I noticed that the article is full of sources not correctly cited as references. Is there anyone willing to do the huge work or is there a bot which can fix it? --Checco 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion Debate Link

Came here looking for a quick link to a debate I recall between Boxer and some conservative guy on the topic of where the point is between a baby outside the womb and a fetus inside the womb ("if the baby's arm is still inside? if the baby's head is still inside?"). A quick skim doesn't bring it up, and this talk page doesn't mention it, but does indicate that there's practically nothing negative about Boxer on the whole page. Given that my entire experience with the woman is reading that particular debate transcript, and that it put a rather negative light on her, I wonder if it used to be linked to from this page but the link got removed by someone who didn't want people thinking a conservative could calmly talk her into apoplexy a la 12 Angry Men (that's my general memory of what I read, but it's been a while). Anyway... could someone put up the link - perhaps under the Abortion section, or under a criticisms link section? Wikipedia needs to be balanced, and not act as mere advertising. Thanks! Kilyle (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First post/edit ever on Wikipedia...but don't the terms "Abortion Rights" and "Gun Control" inherently give away a POV? There are persons who rather use the terms "Abortion Control" and "Gun Rights", so this is actually larger than just a page about Barbara Boxer. This is something that might be better addressed at the whole Wikipedia level. Perhaps it already is and just this page violates that spirit of neutrality. It's not an aspect of Wikipedia I've investigated until now... BillDMoose (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Presidential run?

I saw a "Barbara Boxer for President" pin... was that just something some fans made in hopes of her running, or did she actually make an attempt? Шизомби (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed appearance

She no longer looks like that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.197.114 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this go at the beginning or on "Committee assignments"?

While correcting the grammar on an edit done by Darth Kalwejt, I began wondering if the third paragraph of the article("With the 110th Congress convening...") should be moved to the "Committee Assignments" section. I certainly think that the information should stay(the fact that she's the first woman to chair the Enviroment committee and the only senator who currently presides over two committees at the same time is, I think, interesting) but perhaps it should be removed from the opening and put in the appropiate section. Adrael (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rose campaign

Is the trivia about the "Barbara Boxer Rose Campaign" really necessary? It's cute, but is it really relevant and encyclopedia-worthy? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

split section(s)

I would suggest doing a Political positions of Barbara Boxer since there is a lot of meat in here.--Levineps (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing Condoleezza Rice's judgment

Twice now people have added former in the sentence. She was not former when Barbara Boxer criticized her she was the Secretary of State. I have added the word then to try to alleviate the problem. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger vs. Boxer in 2010? What???

In the 2010 election section it says Arnold Schwarzenegger is rumored to be a contender against Boxer. I've never heard any mention of this before and there are no sources to back this up.

"There is speculation that many prominent California Republicans are considering running against Boxer, most notably Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Ok to remove this line? --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Update to newer official photo

I uploaded the following official photo to Commons: File:Sen Barbara Boxer (2007).jpg. Thios pic was made in 2007. Should we change the current one to this one? Cassandro (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like a campaign brochure

192.147.67.12 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It still reads like a campaign brochure. There isn't any reason, for example, to state that the Invest in the USA bill "would create 600,000 new jobs." That's for an article on the bill. This is an article about Boxer. I note also there's nothing addressing the kerfuffle involving Ms. Rice. ... aa:talk 10:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a terrible article. It certainly reads like a campaign brochure. Where's the criticism? As a resident of California, I know that quite a few other people don't like her. A criticism section should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.119.8 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What specific facts do you feel are currently left out but should be included in this article? Please feel free to suggest changes. As for the second part, most politicians do not have a criticism section and in fact seperate criticism sections are frowned upon by wiki good article standards (they represent poor encyclopedic style and, in practice, tend to just turn into troll bait for opponents to post whatever opinion piece they read on a blog that day). It is general only found in articles about highly controversial figures, where the controversy itself is an integral part of their notability. Even then, it can be problematic. It is better to weave the criticism into the article itself (in the context of specific issues, being careful to maintain NPOV) as is done here. Take a look at several other articles about current Senators, both Democratic and Republican, and you'll see what I mean. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is any mention of the recent scandal where she threatened to pursue prosecution of those who allegedly authorized torture at Guantanamo Bay, and then it turned out that she herself was briefed on the interrogation techniques and raised no objection? This has been all over the news and should be included in an unbiased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have confused Barbara Boxer with someone else. In any event, it's not really clear what "scandal" you're referring to. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the incident Dave148109 referred to above involved Nancy Pelosi, not Barbara Boxer. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Born Barbara Levy?

Is Boxer her husband's surname?

Yes, her husband is Stewart Boxer.

Has it been substantiated that Alberto Gonzales condoned torture?

In written instructions, he authorized - supported - it. Kevin Baas^talk 21:42, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Boxer is described as a "vocal advocate for ... the rights of the minority in the Senate", yet in 1994 she voted for a cloture motion aimed at ending the right of the Senate minority (in this case a Republican minority) to filibuster. Shouldn't this necessitate at least a tweaking of the "vocal advocate" label vis-a-vis "rights of the minority in the Senate"? Here is the cloture motion: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:S10MR4-868: Clark Smith, Erfurt, Germany, 12:10, 2005 April 29

Yes, she has acknowledged that and feels now that this decision was a mistake. She has publicly stated that her opinion has changed and that she regrets her prior vote, giving what she has learned. I would hope to see the same kind of wisdom from every member of the U.S. government: the ability to learn. Without it, there is only a dead end. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to add my own comment for the Barbara Boxer article, so I'll piggy-back on this note. The Boxer re-election campaign could not have written a more pandering, glowing profile! Is there really any effort by the Wiki community to attempt an unbiased presentation, or is this just a wink-nudge concept that is only followed when it's pointed out (if then)?

It would just be labeled "vandalism" if I changed a single word. It just needs a complete re-write, unless the intention of Wikipedia is present the Democratic party line. If so, then no changes are necessary at all.

Supported capital punishment?

The article says that Boxer supported capital punishment. But the good people at OnTheIssues.org say otherwise. Their records of Boxer's position:

• Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing
• Require DNA testing for all federal executions
• NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals
• NO on limiting death penalty appeals

Until someone ponies up some proof of a pro-death penalty stance, I'm removing the information.

Granted. My stance on the death penalty is somewhat ambiguous - but my stance on Barbara reflects that of the state of California. So to the point: supporting death penalty appeals is not necessarily opposing the death penalty. It's opposing taking away the right to due process in regards one's life; the right of habeaus corpus (literally: you have the body), which is stated clearly in the constitution. So logically/legally speaking, neither she nor any member of congress, nor any judge or executive officer, has the authority to vote against appeals on the death penalty; if they would, they would not be doing so "under the authority of the united states", in other words they would not be acting in the capacity of a congressperson. But I digress - i have no objection to the removal of said content, it lacking substantiation as pointed out. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Learn to freakin use the spell checker.

Boxer/Rice

At least two editors added paragraphs to different locations regarding Boxer's statements in a recent hearing. I've moved them together, under "Foreign Policy", but they need to be merged. -Will Beback · † · 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and Keith Olbermann comments on the right making it an issue when the same people were not outraged when "Laura Bush said Secretary Rice would never be elected president because she was not married" should be included. ("Olbermann bestows "Worst Person" honors on Kristol, Limbaugh". Media Matters for America. Jan 16, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-16.) PatriotBible 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Olbermann comments on Limbaugh. Let's see. Olbermann comments on Limbaugh. Do you think Olbermann is attempting to get viewers by criticizing more successful people such as Limbaugh and O'Reily? Of course, but the question is: Should the article have the comments of Olbermann criticizing Limbaugh in it?? I don't think so. It seems so far a field.--Getaway 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What's does Olbermann's criticism of Limbaugh have to do with Boxer and Rice??76.23.38.81 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Alford's accusations

Long-time editor Loonymonkey obstibly believes no reference or mention of anyting contained in the following section as salvageable, per WP:PRESERVE, deleting it en masse, without even bringing it to the talkpage.

Accusations of Racism

On July 16, 2009, National Black Chamber of Commerce President Harry C. Alford accused Barbara Boxer of making racially condescending comments when she cited an NAACP report. In their heated exchange, Boxer cited Black organizations that disagreed with the Black Chamber of Commerce's ideas on Cap and Trade. This upset Mr. Alford, and he pursued her reasoning for citing African-American organizations with no economic bearing rather than other organizations with some sort of economic or energy relativity. "Sir, they passed it. They passed it," Boxer responded. "Now, also, if that isn't interesting to you, we'll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta." Alford protested that Boxer was condescending to him. "I'm the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you're trying to put up some other black group to pit against me," he said angrily.

Boxer claimed that if Grant was there, he would be proud she was quoting him. "He should have been invited," Alford exclaimed. "All that's condescending and I don't like it. It's racial. I don't like it. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that."[2]

↜Just M E here , now 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• RSes:

1. NYT
2. WSJ
3. Reuters

↜Just M E here , now 20:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are blogs. Guess what, blogs chatter about politicians on an hourly (minute-by-minute, actually) basis. We don't rush to add everything they say to a biographical article. Again, we write these things for the long view. Just because someone is mentioned in a news cycle doesn't make it notable to their biography. As a side note, you may want to lay off the personal attacks and stick to discussing the article. I really have no interest in engaging in a petty flame war. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your apparent reluctance to rebut the gist of some my arguments, for whatever your stated reasons. ↜Just M E here , now 00:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• An IP recast the material to

  More recently, she was accused of subtle racism when she attempted to shout down Harry C. Alford during a discussion on the Markey/Waxman Climate Change Bill. Her comments to Mr. Alford did not address the substantive issues, but rather focused on the fact that other Black organizations supported the bill. Mr. Alford said that this suggested that he, as a Black man, should not have an opinion himself but should simply fall in line with the other Black organizations.

  -- which Loonymonkey rightly deleted (since it makes WP give opinions rather than carefully provides opinions in Alford's voice; and Loonymonkey implied s/he had only enough time to revert the contribution but not recast it in a more appropriate manner hi/rself). ↜Just M E here , now 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The way this is being framed in the article is that "Senator Boxer was racist to Harry Alford!" This is a completely POV and unfair analysis, completely devoid of any context. It should be noted that Alford's group has "received $350,000 from ExxonMobil since 2003 and has a history of offering up climate skeptic talking points."^[3]--The lorax (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but rather a specific, editorially neutral point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides.---WP:YESPOV

The lorax, might you be able to suggest or make edits or contributions to balance the paragraph wrt Alford's accusations current POV? ↜Just M E here , now 04:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloggy, historically irrelevant, unencyclopedic content removed per WP:RECENTISM. Viriditas (talk)

Veriditas, were you to supplement this deletion from the "public image" section of Boxer's bio by your going over to "Public image of Sarah Palin" and en toto delete eg:

Caribou Barbie. Following her nomination, Palin was often tagged with the epithet "Caribou Barbie", a play on Malibu Barbie, owing to her background as a beauty pageant contestant in her home state of Alaska.[4][5] Palin herself uttered this phrase when she made an October 18, 2008 guest appearance on Saturday Night Live, filling in the blank for Alec Baldwin, who could not remember what people called her.[6]

-- with an edit summary of "'well, isn't that exciting honey' WP isn't MSNBC!" and likewise citing WP:RECENTISM -- then, and only then, will I believe you wholly NPOV in your deletions. (It would be even better for editors to refrain from making political statements at all in edit summaries, for the most part. See WP:SOAP.) ↜Just M E here , now 08:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please, in 100 words or less, using standard formatting, plain text and no blockquotes, explain in very direct terms why you used bloggy sources to add this pointless, irrelevant trivia to a biography in an encyclopedia? Why is this information important? And, why will it be important six months from today? Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, I respectfully assume you're addressing the IP who added the section -- and not me? ↜Just M E here , now 08:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, you mean the IP who reverted to your version? diff And when it was removed again, you split a section out of this article and created a new article (Public image and political reception of Barbara Boxer), and added the disputed content again. Really, your behavior should not be tolerated by anyone, on any article. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted to the IP's version in a previous diff, I'm afraid. Also, Viriditas, re-read WP:BRD, please. I'm going to step away from this page in a miniWikibreak but wish to defend myself against your verbal onslaught this way: Ma'am/sir, that you -- {cough cough} somebody whose characteristic editing behavior is to engage in edit warring polemics -- would characterize my obviously good faith efforts, which are themselves free of either warring or strident partisanship but are instead toward improving the encyclopedia through constructive edits, as intolerable behavior, unconscionably denigrates the boldness that serves as the backbone of this encyclopedia project. ↜Just M E here , now 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In a "P.S." to those who subsequently read the thread above wrt Boxer-Walsh: Nothing more clearly illustrates a principle alluded to at WP:POLE! Observe how, in that thread, a lone individual dismissively -- with a "voice as if from heaven" and a finger poised above hi/r edit-warring delete-button -- successfully counteracts a half-dozen or more commenters who believe that incident notable (although I leave it to you to determine if the end result of this process is at a 90° angle to the surface, say, in comparison with eg the Palin series). ↜Just M E here , now 17:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer the question. Why is the incident notable and why will it still be notable in six months? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO: That editors at prestigious publications consider the incident notable enough to have provided it coverage would support its brief mention in the subject's bio within the context of our encyclopedic coverage of her image. ↜Just M E here , now 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you cannot answer the question. There is no indication of any historical notability pertaining to this biographical encyclopedia article. What makes the incident notable now? What will make it notable six months from now? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Of course, you are free to claim otherwise. So, why haven't you? Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Veriditas, IMO, furthermore, your serial controversialisms but masquerade as good-faith editing. ↜Just M E here , now 16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please directly answer the question? How is the incident notable for the encyclopedic perspective used on Wikipedia? What important historical event does the incident illustrate? Viriditas (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with JustMe. If Wikipedia were to chronicle events that are solely "historical" in nature, and if Wikipedia were encyclopedic for all intents and purposes, there would be bigger fish to fry than this blurb. Carrie Prejean is likely not a figure of historical or social significance but her Wikipedia page is relatively exhaustive - mostly with respect to the controversy surrounding her remarks - but has been tagged for improvement for months pending style and content changes. If what she said is historically significant, the standard by which Wikipedia must judge itself should reflect similar controversies. Social significance is reflected often in the impulse to "Wikipedia it!" and users anticipate that references will be meticulously researched, sourced and discussed on the Talk Page. The Alford comments and the discussions regarding his "motive" for accusing Boxer of race-baiting are nowhere to be found. As a high school teacher who often assigns "Wikipedia Projects," the incompleteness of information here is disappointing. Even if the section weren't removed arbitrarily and summarily, it was removed just the same with very little meaningful discussion. Alford's remarks and Boxer's responses bear mentioning, at the very least. Can't we come up with a constructive way to highlight the issue without giving it unnecessary weight? --PunkRockRamone (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

I tried to give some context to the contentious testimony, noting that his organization has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil.--The lorax (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly difficult to determine how this will be important in six months. In all likelihood it will not. Everyone already knows what Boxer's position on race issues are and who she will call when she need someone from a specific community to take the stand and make proclamations on behalf of everyone from that community. Her conduct mirrors that of most other Democrats so no big surprise here. The only way this becomes notable is if Boxer has a serious challenger next year (as is appearing likely) and if that challenger decides to make an issue out of this. Other than that, there is little chance of this being a serious issue. --Ian Struan (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen dumbass, it's notable because Barbara is a Democrat and if there is one thing Democrats demagogue on more than anything else, it's race issues. With her little interaction with Mr. Alford, she shows herself to be a closet racist. THAT is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.87.178 (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks aren't going to help your case and calling her a racist is pushing your own POV.--The lorax (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

New sub-article

rolled up (entirely peripheral discussion between 2 edzitors)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've created a new sub-article entitled "Public image and political reception of Barbara Boxer." ↜Just M E here , now 08:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And, you took the opportunity to add the disputed content again after the "anon IP" thingy didn't work out. Use the talk page to gain consensus for your content forking and restoration of disputed content, first. Stop trying to fool people. The discussion above shows that you have no consensus for your edits. I've reverted your unilateral edits against consensus, accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC) The "anon IP thingee"?! Viriditas, this is NOT the forum for you to campaign against IPs' editing of Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are obviously no gentleman, for what I know ya REALLY are doing is falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry! I challenge you to a duel for this insult to my honor. Would you agree to meet me at high noon? I suggest we use this matching set of pearl-handled, cap-and-ball dueling pistols (viz: to have whatever IP address(es) checked out). However, when your accusation proves wrong, I fully expect your apology. (2 C. ago and real, my feelings are such that I don't even know if I'd be pointing my piece staight up into the air at the last second or doing otherwise.) ↜Just M E here , now 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) In virtually every dispute you've been involved in, there are anon IPs hovering around the articles, either casting votes in AfD's, adding "metoo" messages to the talk page, or reverting to your version. Is this a coincidence? Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Viriditas, those assertions are completely and utterly without any basis in actual reality; however, I beg you to please bring your false accusations in this regard to an appropriate forum if they are what you inexplicably want to contend. ↜Just M E here , now 13:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC) It's my direct observation from dealing with you in several different areas, from articles, to talk pages, to AfD's. I was not surprised in the least to see the same thing happen again here, and when I noticed it, I thought I should let you know. Viriditas (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Viriditas, I will say again, if (which, I fear, in your regard, would only be a hypothetical if of the slightest possibility) ... if you were to have an interest in only making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia while avoiding the stoking of useless controversies, you'd limit your accusations of bad faith to an appropriate forum. Please, I beg you. ↜Just M E here , now 16:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Like I said, this was only an advisory that I've noticed this several times. Take it or leave it. Viriditas (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Political Style

OK so this is what I would like to add (and have added - but please edit if necessary):

Senator Boxer has faced some criticism from other Democrats for having an abrasive personal style that has made it difficult to obtain bipartisan support in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, specifically upon the Lieberman-Warner bill. Boxer herself has acknowledged the need to adjust her blunt style in order to shepherd environmental bills through this committee, stating that “I am known as someone who says it the way I think it”.

This has been removed by two users on the grounds that it is "Non-notable, not supported by refs".

First off it is supported by the references. Take a look at the first article by Politico - unnamed democratic staffers note that "In private conversations, Senate staffers say that Boxer’s abrasive personal style helped tank the climate bill that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and former Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) sponsored last year….“One of the criticisms that comes down on Boxer a great deal is that she takes it to really a very personal level,” said one Democratic staffer. Added another Democratic aide: “People don’t look at her as the person who’s going to make a deal and bring both sides to the table. Her way is the only way.” "

Also the New York times article > notes "It was Boxer's committee alone that approved the climate bill before last year's floor debate. The process was not smooth, and moderate Democrats howled in protest that she had not conducted enough outreach on such a momentous piece of legislation."

Finally, we have an article from CQ Politics that notes, "Many Hill watchers are skeptical that Boxer, known more for being a voice of protest from the left than for actually moving legislation, can tone down her abrasive style and deploy some diplomatic skills as chairwoman to make it happen. Boxer acknowledges that marshaling the bill through the Senate means adjusting her usual blunt style. “I am known as someone who says it the way I think it,” she said"

Secondly, it is notable in that it address a commonly known issue, that Boxer has a style that makes her chairwomanship of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works a concern for Democrats. Boxer is well known for her political style, which depending upon the source, is described as either passionate or abrasive.

If you would like to edit the section that I have added, them please do so. But please do not simply cut it out and declare that it is unsupported by references or non-notable. I am not trying to start an edit war here, please let us discuss this rationally and politely. Thank you.--Ian Struan (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Finding some random disconnected quotes from a couple sources is simply a bit of WP:OR on your part. It has not been established that this is in any way notable to her biography or integral to a description of her. Further, we don't use blog sources (CQ Politics) and the NY Times quote doesn't have anything to do with "temperament", it was about specific actions on a single bill. All that leads back to the original point that an article in a single online political story is not enough to establish that this is an essential part of her public image. Sorry, but it's simply not notable and making a whole section out of that politico article would be undue weight. And finally, if you are not trying to start and edit war, then don't edit war. Remember it is up to you to get consensus for this addition before adding it to the article. Don't simply keep adding it without consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am done arguing with you. I am NOT trying to start an edit war. I added it again only to be sure that I received a prompt response from you since i am sure that you were keeping an eye on this article and didn't want entry in the discussion to be ignored. Forget it, i will wait patiently until more articles come out about her abrasive (or passionate) character, or I will find more of them when i have time. Everyone on the hill or anyone who knows anything about politics knows what her personality is, how much of an implication that has had on environmental policy in the country. Though i doubt that any amount of citations will ever convince you. --Ian Struan (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was reading these recent edits and the implication that she's "abrasive" seems unfair, see Joe Romm's take: [7] I think that if a guy was in her shoes, he'd be considered "tough."--The lorax (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, I came across that assessment when I was looking for additional articles. I agree that there may be a bit of latent sexism in the quote of the unnamed Democratic staffer. Perhaps a better word is in order for it is blunt or confrontational.--Ian Struan (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The intent here is to create a "neutral and readable product." (See [8].) When characterizing others' opinions, we want to take into account 1) the input of "notable individuals" holding that opinion and 2) the opinions of the general public. These views should predominate any discussion of public opinion. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we summarily submit ourselves to argumentum ad populum; rather, that we attempt to examine the effect that her attitude has had - in the public eye and amongst her peers in Senate. For Boxer's temperament to be excluded (particularly before permitting the careful NPOV attention paid by multiple editors) would not satisfy the responsibility to approach her article with honesty.

For some decent examples, notice the wide variety of viewpoints in the articles on President Clinton's[9] and President Bush's[10] public images; mentions of hot tempers[11] and jovial ones[12]. Look anywhere and you'll find that temperament (and the opinions of others with respect to one's temperament) is notable. I dispute the notions that mentioning Senator Boxer's temper is simply a bit of WP:OR and that this aspect of her personality is not "an essential part of her public image." Let's attempt to reach a consensus about this matter. --PunkRockRamone (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS aside for a moment, temperament is discussed briefly in those articles because it is notable and mentioned very often in reliable sources about those subjects. The same has not been established about the subject of this article. We don't by default discuss the temperament of all biographical subjects because it is mentioned in regard to Clinton and Bush. Saying you "dispute that" doesn't change the fact that it's simply not a notable and important part of her character. And scouring the internet for one or two online articles doesn't establish notability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I do appreciate your opinion on this matter, my respectful disagreement with you is not based in OCE (note "Precedent in Usage" - I'm trying to establish a framework for discussion). Rather, I am attempting to find common ground with the other editors on an issue that, while it has legs in an obvious and nonpartisan way, continues to be ignored and the substance deleted. I'm not trying to overuse shortcuts to bolster my argument, but to demonstrate the legitimacy of this point of view.

I accept your point of view as being legitimate, and I would appreciate similar respect. Stating as a matter of "fact" that these aspects of Boxer's attitude are not notable does not propitiate the need to talk about it. The implication that I or others have "scoured the internet" for "one or two" articles to demonstrate a valid concern does not allow me the benefit of the doubt. I know I'm a relative newcomer, but I think we can substantiate, minimally at least, that the "jury's still out" so to speak on the notability of Boxer's temperament. Let's please allow others to chime in and see what kind of consensus can be reached; after some discussion, hopefully we can put this to rest and all be satisfied. My best regards. --PunkRockRamone (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Harry Alford's accusations

The recent accusations by Harry Alford that Barbara Boxer was being racial should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.140.88 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is making the allegations?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: See the discussion above on the same topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Who in the world is Harry Alford?? South Bay (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Founder and CEO of National Black Chamber of Commerce.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just call me senator

Looks like Barbara Boxer is going to be a worldwide icon against women in politics with her "just call me senator" remark. It's all over the interwebs now. This whole wikipedia entrance looks like one big huge, huge, huge ego document, but now there is even more proof of her "It's all about me, me, ME" attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsGR83Imoto

It deserves a seperate entrance in her bio imho. She's world famous now because of her huge ego and childish behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.155.173 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't the title be changed to "senator Barbara Boxer"? She worked very hard for that title, you know? And why is her wikipedia entrance much larger than the wikipedia of Paris Hilton (no title), while Miss Hilton is much more famous? The burder of this page can go to "senator" Susan Boxer's own website and does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.155.173 (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This page is for discussing specific changes to the article, not for discussing your opinion of the subject or of Wikipedia in general. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about her page: 1. She is world famous now because of her "call me senator" remark. It belongs on her page. 2. Her wiki page needs a big cleanup. She has her own website to make propaganda for her, she doesn't need wiki for that nor is wiki meant to be used like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.155.173 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey is correct. But this incident should be included in the article. I don't have time to add it right now. But perhaps somebody else could. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. It has nothing to do with her biography. Just because a couple of right-wing blogs are chattering about it this week doesn't mean that it's at all notable or that anyone will remember or care about it in six months. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even political? It doesn't matter what right-wing blogs are doing, it's what's worthy of placing in the biography. There are many, many news stories about this incident, it's very notable, and it should certainly be mentioned in a "criticism" section. You're soapboxing about right-wing blogs. This isn't a forum, as you noted yourself. Doctorcherokee (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, it's all over the internet, I don't even live in the United States but in the Netherlands, but it was a newsitem here, because it was funny to see someone behaving so arrogant. Otherwise I would never even heard from ma'am Barbara Boxer. Why can't she have a "criticism" section, like most politicians? BTW I am not right wing, and I don't believe you have to be rightwing to find her behaviour very inappropriate and way out of line of how someone in the Senate should behave. She is there to serve the people, not too belittle people who did a lot more for their title than she did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.155.173 (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum for you to air your opinions about the subject of this article. Please stop soapboxing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what soapboxing is, I just give a reaction to your post. And I notice you're not really answering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.155.173 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It means the talk page is for discussing changes and improvements for the article, not for chatting. I don't know how much plainer it can be made.--Kross^Transmit? 21:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This incident is notable. And plenty of reliable sources can be found. Consider Fox News or Politico or the Huffington Post (if you want a liberal site). JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, (not that this is particularly newsworthy anyway). Including this would be recentism, plain and simple, and would give undue weight to what is really just a tiny bit of this week's frivolous partisan chatter. Sorry, but two blog links and an editorial from Fox News don't make the case that this is an important biographical incident in her life. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias to be true, criticism of Barbara boxer needs to be included in the article. This event could be included in such a section. --Chemguy2 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this incident MUST be included on Sen. Boxer's page because she will forever be associated with this controversial remark. We have a much-too-long section of Boxer's bio devoted to her overblown comment about Secretary Rice not having family in the military; if that's worthy of Boxer's wiki page, then so is her "call me Senator" comment. 76.23.38.81 (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) The initial suggestion from an IP (for the incident to receive, quote, a seperate entrance, end of quote, in Boxer's biography) led Loonymonkey to inapplicably cite WP:SOAP while ignoring WP:BITE and such WP:RSes, obtainable via even the most perfunctory of google searches, listed immediately below?

1. "What's in a title, ma'am?" (from National Public Radio's Weekend Edition): "Sen. John McCain and many TV pundits were among those who have needled Boxer over the exchange with Walsh, even though there appear to be no hard feelings between the two of them. They are said to have had a pleasant phone conversation since the hearing. So if Barbara Boxer wants to be referred to as senator instead of ma'am — what's the harm?"
2. The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien:
   
   "This is weird. On a Congressional hearing this Tuesday, Brigadier General Michael Walsh referred to Senator Barbara Boxer as 'ma'am' and she got irritated. She asked him to refer to her as 'Senator' and things only went down hill from there. Check it out.
   
   [Clip plays to audience's laughter and applause.]
   
   "That wasn't right. Why did he do that? Boobalicious honey pants. Sure."
   
   
3. "Ma'am is title you'd use for her mother" (from The Sacramento Bee): "Military protocol calls for service members to refer to people by their rank or title. The same protocol also adds, however, that 'you can never go wrong by using "sir" or "ma'am."' The military may want to revisit that one."
4. Microsoft Network/National Broadcast Company's First Read: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) mischievously lampooned the request by a fellow senator that an Army brigadier general refer to her as 'Senator' rather than 'Ma’am.'"
5. LATimes: "Sen. Barbara Boxer's now infamous reprimand of a general for addressing her at a hearing as 'Ma'am'"
6. The Politico newspaper: "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) didn't like a Brigadier General calling her 'ma'am' at an EPW hearing yesterday."
7. "What do you call a lawmaker, anyway?" at The Politico
8. United Press International: "State Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who is planning to run against Boxer in 2010, said the senator 'dressed down' the general who was following Army protocol, which gives service members the option of referring to members of the U.S. Senate as 'sir,' 'ma'am' or 'senator.'"
9. McClatchy Newspapers(/SactoBee): "Pundits and the national media have been having a field day over the dust-up."
10. "Boxer scolds Army General for not calling her 'Senator,'" by The Christian Science Monitor: "Ever wonder what Eric Cartman might sound like if he was in Congress?"
11. ChiTrib

Loony's talkpage commentary in the above is obviously but distraction (at least IMO; also see WP:Wikilawyering). ↜Just M E here , now 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of soapboxing if you feel it doesn't apply to statements such as "her behaviour very inappropriate and way out of line of how someone in the Senate should behave. She is there to serve the people, not too belittle people who did a lot more for their title than she did." That's the very definition. This is the talk page for a biography article, not a discussion forum to air your personal opinions about a politician. Adding a few google links is a red herring, because the problem was never WP:RS, it was WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT. This has nothing to do with her biography. Will it be remembered a year from now? No, of course not, it's been a month and it's already forgotten (can you find a single reliable source from this month that mentions it?). We write these articles with the long view, not the 24-hour news cycle. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So, LoonyMonkey, you counteract such editorial posturing with countering political statements? Indeed, rather than pretend only the kettle's black, let's cut staight to whatever the merits may be for inclusion/exclusion, shall we? ↜Just M E here , now 18:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have any actual comments about the article, or do you just want to attack me? If the latter, please find another place to do it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed reacting with some irritation to your general commenting style, LoonyMonkey. But, just take the following feedback for what it's worth. As an example of your stylistic choices, although I believe you genuinely believe it absolutely impossible that the Boxer/ma'am issue is mentioned in current RSes, wouldn't it be better to state your belief...as a belief? especially since it's possible (I'll be polite and not say likely!) a contradiction of your belief could conceivably happen after perfunctory googling? The voice of authority that's contradicted comes off worse than the voice of sincerely stating someone's presumably informed opinion, couched as such, I believe. I also belive I'm being striaghtforward moreso than feisty with regard to the characteristic tone of your editing summaries/talkpage comments that I find irritating, but it's actualy likely that I myself have verged over much into -- feisty-ness. OK, I apologize for that. (Still, FWIW I believe it best to append "it seems," and "I personally think" &c and so forth for stuff that is from whatever our own expertise, and use pronouncements only when we've got refs &c immediately at hand to back up some carefully worded pronouncement. Just sayin.) ↜Just M E here , now 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although a neutral observer would say you continually move what you want to be taken as the goal posts (eg from your original "only blogged about" objection), I will admit the concept of there being continuing reference to a news event as some kind of indicator of its cultural significance is perhaps as valid of a seat-of-the-pants type of measure as any, I suppose, even if there is no guideline indicating any such type of test. There obviously cannot be current news mentions of something that is no longer news; and note that if we were to take your "current references" test as a fully legitimate criteria, we'd then be required to move the Rice incident to the talkpage pending its being shown to be commented about somewhere, currently, as well (not to mention the bulk of the incidents mentioned in our biography of Boxer); nevertheless, I'll providing a link and quote of some commentary involoving Walsh from 17 July: "Ma'am!! Boxer not offended this time" at Glenn Beck's Current Events & Politics:

(Commentator Glenn Beck): "Do you happen to have the audio of last time somebody said ma'am?"       [Start of audio clip]:

(Senator Barbara Boxer): "Well, why has it been delayed?"

(Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh): "Ma'am, at the LACPR is ---- "

(Boxer): "You know, do a favor. Could you say senator instead of ma'am? I worked so hard to get that title. So I appreciate it, thank you."       [ -- End of audio clip]

(Commentator Pat Gray): "It's just a thing. She worked so hard to get that title. About you when Harry Alford yesterday called her ma'am four times within about 30 seconds, she didn't stop him."

So, Loonymonkey, do you now agree we should include a very brief mention of the Walsh incident in the "public image" section somewhere? Or will you move the goal posts again. ↜Just M E here , now 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK folks, here's some original research. Below is some of the guidelines found in Department of the Army Pamphlet 600–60: Personnel—General: A Guide to Protocol and Etiquette for Official Entertainment" (11 December 2001; from its "Chapter 6: Forms of Address"):

[ . . . . . . . . . ]

 

Governor of a State

 

[ . . . . . . . . . ]

Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Governor Doe

or

The Honorable John Thomas Doe, Governor of California (or the State of California)

Conversation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Governor Doe or Governor or Sir

 

United States Senator

 

[ . . . . . . . . . ]

Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senator Doe or The Honorable John

Doe, United States Senator from (State)

Conversation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senator Doe or Senator

When the senator is a woman: Use Senator

 

I find this all very interesting. Is it be more appropriate for a military man to have addressed Senator Hillary Clinton as "Senator" rather than "Senator Clinton"? How about a military woman? Would she also be more correct to have addressed Clinton as "Senator" than "Senator Clinton"? Hmmm...possibly so; maybe using a surname with a woman effects less respect than when used with a man. Interesting!

 

The other point is that whoever wrote this manual pointedly allows for calling governors "sir" however does not mention this as acceptable for senators. Is this because of senators' oversight role with regard to members of the United States Army? I would imagine that in extended conversations that a military man or woman probably could/should slip in "sir/ma'am," but it appears that the guidelines make a point to mention the special status of senators. So.....there you go.

 

And to add my own opinion to the above wikipedians' commentary: Yeah, I think Boxer is technically in the right. Still, she would have come across herself as more polite if she'd not interrupted the "brig" general but had let him finish his statement. Then she could have just maybe said, "Just call me senator" in an offhand way, that is, without her seeming to make too big a deal about it(?) Maybe then it wouldn't have attracted undue notice as an issue of controversy. (IOW, although I personally believe that she believes herself to have been advocating for women in politics in general, not just for herself, with regard to the generic "ma'am" courtesy, as I said, her interjection of the request when she did ended up being less smooth than maybe she would have liked it to have been, I'm guessing.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read the discussion between Viriditas and Justmeherenow. I was the anon starting this discussion, and I'm not Justmeherenow nor do I know Justmeherenow. Viriditas is making a false accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehellenia (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of recentism. Since it's being used in Carly Fiorina's campaign, I think it does qualify as notable. It's a good example her well-documented "fighter" nature, but it's too one-sided to be included under a top-level heading. For now, I've moved it into a new second-level heading. More general analysis of her "Public image, political reception and controversy" directly under that second-level heading would be nice.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 03:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be used in some of Fiorina's ads, but it hasn't really caught any attention in third-party reliable sources. Just because a political opponent makes an attack in a paid advertisement, doesn't mean we include it in a biography, absent other factors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

reverts of good faith edits

Edits which only include factual information based on her public voting record should not ALL need to be cited. To remove edits on this basis suggests that the many many statements on the page about her votes each need to be sourced or removed 76.102.212.231 (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

citation needed (RE: "second female Jewish U.S. senator, after Sen. Dianne Feinstein")

Weren't they both elected in the same year? Dianne Feinstein was elected on a special election that year.

OK, I am looking at the Feinstein article and see that ,"Because Feinstein was elected to an unexpired term, she became a senator as soon as the election was certified in November while Boxer would not take office until the expiration of Cranston's term in January; thus Feinstein became California's senior senator, even though she was elected at the same time as Barbara Boxer.".

But I still suggest we leave the {{citation needed}} tag in place until someone can fill that in with a citation. It is pretty counter intuitive. 160.39.220.88 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Which part is counter-intuitive? That seems to make perfect sense. While they may have been elected at the same time, Feinstein was sworn in a month or two earlier, thus she became the first female Jewish senator.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Approval Polling

Please do not delete my addition of approval polling from SurveyUSA. It's both newsworthy and an unbiased reliable source. This polling result is current and does not add nor subtract from the overall article. I disagree with your opinion that this single poll provides undue weight to the article. If you feel otherwise, then BE BOLD and add other current polling data to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.190.25.16 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Senatorial approval fluctuates from month to month and the poll in the article is dated September 17, 2010, not to mention that each polling company's polls give different results. Furthermore, I don't think it's reasonable to update polls frequently, for practical reasons. There maybe a WP:WEIGHT issue, more generally. Also, in your words: "[it] does not add... [to] the overall article."--Dark Charles 04:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The approval polling data do not add or subtract any bias from this article. I saw that another person thought that one poll added WP:WEIGHT to the article, but I disagree that it does. It's easy during this time to find biased polls, but I've found that SurveyUSA is about as non-biased as one can find. Given that they're updated about on a monthly basis, it's not hard to keep up with current data. If you can find other polls that don't have WP:BIAS issues, then be bold and add to them article.Jas public (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"[D]iscussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." So this violates WP:WEIGHT, because it's pushing a recent event, also maybe because of the prominence of the table. In addition, putting a poll up is not consistent with the mission of Wikipedia because encyclopedias generally do not sight polls. Maybe you could find a source that talks about Barbra Boxer's popularity over the years, and integrate that information into the article; that wouldn't be a violation.--Dark Charles 17:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir, if you don't respond, I'm going to erase the polling stuff in the article.--Dark Charles 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that you didn't remove my contribution. Your opinion that a current non-partisan job approval survey somehow violates WP:WEIGHT is simply your own opinion. I'll be happy to add discussion of the Senator's popularity, provided that you do not take it upon yourself to censor my unbiased contributions to this article.Jas public (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I've explained why the poll is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and you haven't been able to explain why that's not true, nor have you explained how a poll is consistent with Wikipedia's mission. This isn't just opinion vs. opinion; there are rules on Wikipedia. Until you can explain why what I've said isn't true, the information should be removed.--Dark Charles 16:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But you have not explained how a poll is such a violation. You keep insisting that I prove that it is not. How does an unbiased, current job approval survey provide overall undue weight to a large article? Surely you don't think that this one is a biased survey? We're not talking about bias, are we? By the way, I regret using the C-word (censor) earlier in this thread. I will be happy to discuss your opinions further with you, and I do appreciate that you have remained civil and courteous with me. My work will bring me away from internet access for a few days, and during my absence, I would ask for your leave to refrain from removing my contribution until we can amicably resolve our difference of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas public (talk • contribs) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about weight. A poll gives an approximation of how people currently feel about an issue. But Wikipedia is supposed to give a history/explanation of a person/thing such that only facts the are significant in the long-run are listed. Take a look at WP:RECENT, and WP:EFFECT. Here's a test given in WP:RECENT to see if there's a violation:

In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?

In this case, the approval rating of Boxer for one specific month is not relevant over the long-run, so it shouldn't be in the article. --Dark Charles 22:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Charles. The poll only represents a recent snapshot of Boxer's long political career. To include it without any other polls or analysis amounts to undue weight. Perhaps it could be included as prose in a section that discusses her popularity or public perception. Gobonobo ^{T C} 07:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Too many unsourced, unverifiable, pronouns(she), statements mentioning laws Boxer authored that appear untrue/hearsay such as H.R. 3355 (1993-1994) 103rd Congress. Section under controversy appears as an personal attack. With a Senate election coming up in a few weeks for California - let's get this page honest. Any thoughts and ideas are welcome. Thank you. Cloak&Dagger (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Activism"

Should Barbara Boxer really be categorized as a "pro-choice activist?" She's pretty liberal on every issue, so activist sounds like an incorrect term for her. I've seen many of these cases on different articles, which label prominent conservatives and liberals as activists for single issues. 24.151.113.86 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic at all. She certainly is a pro-choice activist - just because she also takes other progressive positions doesn't obviate her strong support and activism on pro-choice issues. It may be your pet peeve, but that's not really relevant to how we edit the article. Tvoz/talk 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.188.156.191, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Ref. 2 actually says that she is projected to win by CNN Exit Polls, not that she has won by vote count.

65.188.156.191 (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We should replace the ref (it was slapped on there sometime last night), but the race has been called now. I don't think we even need a ref for something as basic as the winner and loser of an election, without specific numbers. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I slapped it on last night because it was the best ref available at the time, and I wanted to stave off the inevitable quibbling about whether she had yet won - but I don't disagree with Loony's point. I'd put a better ref down below in the body section that refers to the 2010 election, with numbers, and I don't see a real need for it in the intro. Don't have time to look right now, so I hope someone will find something better and place it properly. (Hey, it was really late here on the east coast when I did that slapping...) Tvoz/talk 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, clearing a backlog on Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Since it's clear that people have already addressed this, I'm going to {{tlf}} the template. elektrikSHOOS 04:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Does anyone know of a more recent official Senate photo that could be used? I saw the Senator on tv the other day and she looks very different, a complete new look. The photo is six years old and a newer one might be nice and if someone could find one it would be appreciated. Thanks.--Politicsislife (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Found one myself. Though if anyone can find a better one please feel free to place it.--Politicsislife (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Major rehaul

Now that the election is over, this aricle needs to be re-written to provide a less 'rah-rah' view of Senator Boxer, and provide information from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.24.23 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the changes - such as documenting Boxer's views and votes on the partial birth abortion ban - probably the leading issue currently in the abortion debate currently - were deleted. Please explain why, rather than just undoing it and getting into an editing war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.58.38 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I will make changes. I welcome any comments under the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.58.38 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the neutral point of view to this article. If you wish to discuss it, please discuss it here before editing the article. 117.22.59.184 (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The usual formula is to refer to "pro-choice" and "pro-life". I see you changed a heading from "Reproductive Rights, Family Planning and Birth control" to "Abortion, Family Planning and Birth control". Can you explain how that is more neutral? Also, a senator votes and comments on dozens or even of bills in a term. Why is this particular bill important to add to this article, and have you also added a comment about it to the articles on the other 99 senators?   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I will explain. 'Abortion' is the common word for this issue. To use slanted words such as 'reproductive rights' or 'massacre of the unborn' is inappropriate. Also, it was not just one bill, it has been a passion of the senator to defend partial birth abortions. Plus, the issue of partial birth abortions is probably the leading debate now in Congress regarding abortion, so seems very relevant. The comment about the 99 others senators could be made for any senator on any vote. Read any senators article and you will see and read a variety of different issues expressed. Some articles clearly state the senator's view on health care, iraq war, social security and the abolishment of the penny (:-)), and some do not. Any other questions? 117.22.59.184 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. However I don't see an answer to why you added this material to this article. Abortion may have been an important issue in Congress back in 1998, when bBoxer is quoted as leading the opposition to a bill on the matter.[13] OTOH, Rick Santorum led the other side, yet there's no mention of it there. About 98 senators voted one way or the other too. Why aren't you including this important issue in their articles as well?   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, "partial-birth abortion" is a non-neutral term. Even without that term, the language was loaded, stating that she "supports" a technique because she voted against a bill makes an unproven inference. And finally, I would remind you that it is up to the editor seeking to add controversial information (you) to wait and get consensus before editing the article. Violating this rule and repeatedly adding something without consensus is edit-warring which will get you blocked. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to answer both of your comments in more detail. (1) why was this added? Abortion is a leading issue in America today. You will see a full 21 different points documenting the senator's stances on various subjects, including 'election reform' which is a relatively non-issue. Why were any of these comments added? Does everyone who adds any comment get their edit deleted and have to defend it? I don't think so. One of the leading sub-issues in the larger abortion issue is the issue of partial-birth abortion, so this information is relavent, and important. (2) Why not include data for all senators? The same issue could be made regarding 'election reform' or any of the other points under the senator's 'platform and votes'. Why not include Rick Santorum's view on 'election reform' in his article? Did the person who added that information need to defend it? If so, how did he defend it? I would gladly (and would hope to) add information to Rick Santorum's article on his support for the partial birth abortion ban. However, having to defend this small edit is taking enough of my time at the moment. Once it is finished, then I will try to move on to editing Rick Santroum's article. (3) Your comment she doesn't support the procedure but opposed the ban, is an appropriate comment and good critique. I will change the edit accordingly (pending your response so as to avoid a 'editing war'). Thanks for your helpful critique. (4) Regarding Editing war, you can notice I earlier made comments, welcomed and waited for responses and consensus, but since I got no feedback, I made the edit. However, using the term 'reproductive rights' is also a very controversial term. But I will wait before removing it even though you made the change without getting consensus, to 'go the extra mile' to build consensus. 222.90.94.235 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking more about point 3. While I appreciate and value your comment, I also see a flaw in it. Many articles would document a senators 'support for the iraq war'. I guess one could argue that they do not support the war, but that they support freedom for the Iraqi people, however I suspect all articles simply say 'they support the iraq war', but using your logic, one could then not say 'they support the iraq war' without making an 'unproven inference'. Comments? 222.90.94.235 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many, many reasons that Senators vote against bills. To state as fact that the reason was because she supports what the bill's authors claim to oppose is conjecture (and probably not correct). The stated opposition to the bill generally had little to do with "support" for any particular procedure. Rather, it was said to be in opposition to broadly-written legislation that would have criminalized many medically necessary procedures in certain circumstances. There are other language issues as well, that made the edits less than neutral. Honestly, the additions you are pushing seem to have more to do with having an ax to grind on certain abortion issues, than with improving an encyclopedic biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to building consensus with you, and have taken your and incorporated your comments, though when you say 'ax to grind' and just undo well documented statements, it becomes difficult. Lets work at building consensus. What specifically about the edits do you find problematic, and lets deal with them, rather than just undoing it completely, and getting into a 'editing war'. Lets avoid that, ok? 219.144.166.185 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I will say again, lets discuss it here on the discussion page, rather than getting into an editing war. Ok??? Please state clearly what you feel is 'non-neutral' about my statements. It appears you have not even looked at the edits I made. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets use the four principles listed above: Be polite, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming. Ok? 219.144.166.185 (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply telling other people not to revert your additions isn't exactly the process of consensus building. Not once in these three posts do you spend any time making the case for why you feel this material needs to be added. That would be a start. But more importantly, adding this material multiple times without consensus (while simply repeating other editors' edit summaries back to them) is not just disruptive, it's edit warring. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears you continue not reading comments on the discussion page. Please do. Please read the march 25 posts. I specifically 'spent time making my case for why this material needs to be added'. I have multiple times. I guess I would say 'it takes two to tangle'. So my comment and request (stated again) to you is lets build consensus. Please tell me (I will ask again) what do you find non-neutral about the edits. Do you really feel deleting a dead link is non-neutral? 219.144.166.185 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

People continue not making discussion comments on the discussion page, but continue simply redoing edits. It would be appreciated if it would stop. The latest, regarding Boxer's election stats, are now simply not accurate, but continue to be restored, even though it is no longer accurate. Trying to improve this article sure is difficult when people try to get into editing wars, especially without even reading the edits they are undoing. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to ask, plead and beg people to make discussions on the discussion page, and attempt to reach consensus rather than participarting in editing wars, and also read the edits before reverting back to previous versions. Cooperation would be greatly appreciated. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to this page is unacceptable, yet you keep reverting when many editors undo your edit. You have violated 3RR and should be reported. Cease and desist. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please show me how it is unacceptable? Please stop the editing wars, and tell me how it is unacceptable, or change it so that it is acceptable, rather than just undoing the edit which includes many valuable improvements to the article. The 3rr page clearly states 'When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and try to discuss the issue on the talk page, or approach appropriate venues for help. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested below.' That is what I have done continually, pleading at times for dialogue. If you are willing to participate in dialgoue, then please explain how it is unacceptable rather than just saying it is unacceptable. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to me how removing facts regarding her election history which is no longer truthful or accurate, is 'inappropriate'. 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.144.166.185 (talk)

Election history info can be examined with proper sourcing, but this is a minor part of your edit warring. Your edits regarding reproductive rights are unacceptable, and you've been told this in this section. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What is inapproprate about the edits regarding abortion? I continue to ask, and you continue to not answer. Please explain how it is 'unacceptable'. And the election information you are inserting into the article is no longer truthful. That is not an issue of approrpriate or controversial, it is an issue of honesty. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is a a limit to 3 reverts in a single day which need to be explained if 3 is exceeded. Since I have exceeded 3, I will explain. I have asked and pleaded for discussion and consensus but other editors have not participated in the discussion, but instead simply revert edits. Therefore I have had to exceed 3 revert. Of course they have also exceeded 3 reverts, but have not yet explained their reasons, other than to say my edits are 'unacceptable', without explaining why. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to the other editor for stopping the editing war. If you still think the changes I have made are inappropriate, I still welcome any constructive comments that you can give in our mutual desire to make this article helpful and accurate and non-biased. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you have begun the editing war again. I have reported you. I am sorry, but you gave me no choice. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I continue asking, requesting for discussion and consensus, but you continue to undoing it. I look forward to officials stepping in. I have reported you. I continue asking for answers. Why don't you give them? It would be easier to discuss with me here, rather than participarting in editing wars. Ok? 219.144.166.185 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes are explained clearly above, and multiple requests to seek and ask for consensus have been ignored, so please explain here on the discussion page your action before 'undoing' the edit. Thank you. Rodchen (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Major, esp controversial, changes can be discussed here first before going into the article. As it is more than likely that "Rodchen" and "219.144.166.185" are the same person, what we have here is a 1-person minority with many other editors raising objections to the addition. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And can somebody, anybody, explain what the objection is. Editors say 'it is unacceptable' or 'controversial', but nobody has said how or why. Why is removing dead links, removing outdated and now incorrect info, and additing well documented facts about the Senator considered 'inappropriate'? Rodchen (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion for us to make progress in this matter would be for you to make your edits separately. Remove the dead links in one edit, for example, and if that is deemed unobjectionable after a bit of time, move on to the next, such as removing incorrect info. (Please don't take this to mean a series of edits one right after the other, which will have no material difference from one big edit.) In my experience, kitchen sink edits like yours find objection from everyone, while each individual objection may be over a different matter. It would also show other editors that you are willing to work within the rules and practices of Wikipedia instead of endlessly reverting when your edits are objected to by others. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the suggestion. I will give it a try. I will work through it from top to bottom, step by step. Rodchen (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you discuss these specific edits here first, rather than simply making the same edits again and again without consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, improving this article is much more difficult than improving other ones, but I will try. Barbara Boxer is no longer the all time highest vote winner in a contested election in California history. For example, Obama in 2008 won more votes winning its electoral votes. I suspect there were other 2008 contested elections where somebody won more votes that Boxer in 2004, but when I found that one, I stopped looking. Also, keeping this statistic seems a bit silly, and also very 'rah - rah' for Boxer. I doubt the all time highest vote receiver from the state of Utah also has it documented in his article. So, since it is both no longer accurate and also silly, I have taken the comment out. Rodchen (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified the statement, which was written in a vague manner that left it open to interpretation, and therefore not 100% accurate. It is now accurate. Any further problems you have with the "rah-rah" factor is really your negative POV regarding Boxer or California. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I was going to reword that while I was putting the reference in, but didn't want to totally rewrite the whole sentence. As it stands now, it reflects sources, and is true, but to be more specific the source states that she received more votes by any Senate candidate in US history. so that seems noteworthy to me. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Muboshgu! It was inaccurate before, and now it is accurate. However, it is not noteworthy that she got the most votes in any CA senate election. If you include that stat, then we should include that stat for every office holder in every state. For example who received the most votes for Utah Attorney General in Utah history? or the most votes in Deleware history for Secretary of State? That kind of stat is silly and should not be included. HOWEVER, as DD2K pointed out, if Boxer received the most votes in all American history for any senate seat (which is true), then it is marginally noteworthy, and should be edited to reflect that fact by removing 'CA'. I say 'marginally noteworthy' because the only reason it is true is because CA is the largest populated state and 2004 was the last time CA held a senate election during a presidential election (when turnout is significantly higher). The record will be broken in 2012 by whoever wins the senate seat presently held by Feinstein. Incidently, Muboshgu, this will make the article even more 'rah-rah', but at least makes is an interesting and somewhat noteworthy stat. Including facts that are interesting and complimentary, as long as they are noteworthy is not biased or 'rah-rah'. I would still question its note-worthyness. For example, Jerry Brown won the most votes (I assume) in 2010 of any other governor in history, but I don't find that fact particularly note-worthy (nor included on his wikepedia page). I would be interested, and it would be somewhat noteworthy, however, in who has received the most votes in American history to the House of Representatives. I wonder who it is, I wonder if it is documented. That would be more noteworthy, because each district has approximately the same number of voters. Rodchen (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I also deleted reference to her opponent, as the marginally interesting fact is her total number of votes, not who her oppenent was. If everyone is happy with that, I will proceed with the next edit. Is this ok with everyone? Rodchen (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't speak for everyone, of course, but that works for me. No need to name her opponent in the intro as who it was is pretty immaterial. Gamaliel (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody about 2 weeks ago deleted the section dealing with General Walsh. This is a well documented event, and even somewhat famous, and therefore should be included in this article. I understand that is is somewhat unflattering, but it is a significant event in Boxer's senate experience, and something which was made even more significant during the campaign. Therefore this should be restored as it was before it deleted. Comments? I am seeking consensus? Rodchen (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because it's not notable. It wasn't a "significant event in Boxer's Senate career" and you'd need to document that it was with reliable sources. Just because Fiorina tried to make hay of it doesn't make it important. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How does one 'document significance'? For example, the article includes Boxer being a co-author of the 'Invest in the USA Act'. How was the significance of that documented? The article includes the fact she led the fight to block oil drilling. How was that significance documented? She received 4500 roses for calling attention to Ohio's voting irregularies in 2004. How was that significance documented? When I googled 'Barbara Boxer General Walsh', I got many many pages discussing the incident. That sure seems significant to me. Many more pages than when I googled 'barbara boxer 4500 roses ohio'. It is something she will likely be remembered for, just like Reagon is remembered for the 'We will begin bombing in 5 minutes' incident which incidently has its own separate wikepedia page! Rodchen (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fiorina 'making hay' of the incident, is just another reason why it should be included, just like Willie Norton, capital punishment and flag burning are included in Michael Dukakis's page because it 'was made hay of' during his presidential campaign. It is significant. It may not be flattering of the senator, but it is noteworthy. Rodchen (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Willie Horton incident was seen as a major event in the race, and flag burning was a big issue in 1988. One could point to those events as reasons Bush beat Dukakis. Boxer's challenging the Ohio electoral votes in 2004 was significant in attempting to raise questions about the integrity of our elections, especially in light of the fact that no senators challenged 2000. (Maybe her receiving roses isn't notable here; I'd need input from other editors.) Boxer getting chippy with a general, in comparison, is a nothing story. The voters of California seemed not to care, and this event played no role in the election, outside of some ads that didn't gain traction. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Bush's page includes 'In 1984, Bush told the press that she could not say on television what she thought of then Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, but "it rhymes with rich" ', because her getting 'chippy' was noteworthy and memorable, just as Boxer. I return to your comment 'you need to document that it was a major event from a reliable source'. How does one do that? You say the willie horton incident was a major event in the race. I agree. But if I were to disagree, how would you prove it?

Or maybe even a better example - Dan Quayle's page includes the 'potatoe' incident. Why is that not considered a 'nothing' story? And how is its noteworthyness proven? Rodchen (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Any other comments? or any suggestion on how I can meet your request for documenting significance? Rodchen (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)