Jump to content

Talk:Kelly Ayotte

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

Copyrighted material

[edit]

I removed material copied from http://doj.nh.gov/bio.html Hekerui (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That material was a government document and hence was not under copyright. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity?

[edit]

"Ayotte believes in an unborn child's right to life" Can we have some objectivity here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.174.17 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prescription monitoring

[edit]

This doesn't really fit into the article but for several years while she was AG Ayotte advocated for a prescription medication monitoring program:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/nh-drug-deaths-soaring

--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payday loans

[edit]

In 2008 as AG Ayotte supported the law limiting interest rates and other aspects of payday loans:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/payday-loan-limits-passed

--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Section on Kagan Reads Like a Public Relations Advertisement for Kagan Rather Than a Neutral Part of a Bio of Ayotte

[edit]

(moved to preserve chronology)

The puffery of Kagan's education is absurd because Ayotte clearly didn't say that Kagan lacked the usual education, but that Ayotte didn't find Kagan qualified because of Kagan's ideological views. And including a recitation of law school deans who endorsed Kagan is silly because most law school deans and professors are quite liberal. Also, it would be very easy to find a list of people from various learned disciplines who did not endorse Kagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pared back the section to remove the off-topic material. Horologium (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage

[edit]

Is she of French heritage? 98.209.116.7 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After five years (almost) it must be deemed unimportant; I would agree: "unimportant". That would be interesting but not that important. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well Charles, if it's "unimportant", I would like to direct you to Joe Lieberman's article / page, where no less than 60 lines are devoted to proselytizing his Jewish heritage, background, beliefs, upbringing, relatives, etc., etc. I argued your point there to no avail. It seems that some "heritages" are VERY important, and others, well, not so much. You tell me why and how that works, and why there is such a wide discrepancy in what is and is not "important". Because I really would like to understand the rules once and for all. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayotte's opinion on climate change

[edit]

If you want to add material about this, please find WP:RS to back up your contentions. The uncited remark that "Ayotte does not offer any basis for her skepticism," is the kind of POV statement that does not belong in Wikipedia. Several different editors have now removed this. betsythedevine (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for skepticism of the Global Warming Theory is that the globe has not done any warming since the year 2000. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Print

[edit]

I am not very adept at editing Wikipedia, so I will leave it to someone else, but some of the print in the section concerning the Death Penalty case is absolutely freakin miniscule in size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are -- what a mess! I took out the small print and tried to improve the section in general. betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request changes

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} There are 8 "emails" and 9 "e-mails" to consistent throughout; the rest of these are in order: In Early life... "In 1998, She" → "In 1998, she"; 2010 U.S. Senate campaign... change tense/wording of Senator Gregg's retirement; Direct contributers... "should be "contributors" throughout this section and subsections; Indirect contributers... "As of Oct. 5" para lacks a period; "As of Oct. 7" remove comma after Chamber of Commerce; "As of October 22" "estimates" → "estimated"; Immigration "enforcment" → "enforcement"; Al Qaeda first sentence lacks period; (same section) US/U.S. consistent throughout; Order of precedence box "Michael S. Lee" → "Mike Lee (Utah politician)|Mike Lee" to avoid redirect. Thanks in advance. 75.202.165.24 (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think I got them all. I didn't change "Michael S. Lee" to "Mike Lee (Utah politician)|Mike Lee". I'm not sure which one he goes by, so someone else can change it if Mike is better, but changing it just because it's a redirect isn't necessary. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view?

[edit]

This article seems to be unbalanced, with substantial coverage to her campaign contribution receipts and to the death penalty controversy as compared with her overall biographic history. Is this justified? 69.251.180.224 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add cited, balanced content on other parts of her overall biographic history. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it reads now, its is very biased against this lady -- the whole article. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC) --68.118.201.68 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Marjuana: The True Story of Kelly Ayotte

[edit]

What is stated in the article regarding Ayotte and her views on medical marijuana are completely inaccurate. She wants the Federal Government to control and monitor every substance people take into their bodies. As the State Attorney General it is a known fact she threatened and blackmailed the governor of New Hampshire regarding the medical marijuana law and illegally overstepped her powers in her former office. She told the governor that if he signed the bill into law she would make all police, both local and state, along with the sheriffs of each country go after any and every person who was in possession of or operated medical marijuana locations and would prosecute every single person to the fullest extent under Federal Law. This was a criminal act meeting Federal RICO statutes for criminal prosecution.

Almost every major contributor to her campaign was a PAC or lobbyist for the major drug companies, big tobacco, health insurance, and large media outlets which all do not want to see medical marijuana legal because it would cut into their profit margins. She had her plans for Senate all setup a long time prior to her officially announcing her candidacy and did what she did regarding the blackmail and collusion in order to get them to back her as a candidate. What she did was commit criminal acts as the state's Attorney General and should be prosecuted even today for it.

It is not her place to dictate how state law will be and when it is not what she wants then ignore those state laws in favor of Federal laws. Her place is to operate within the state's laws period. Some of the deleted emails that were not recoverable were supposedly proof of her acts of collusion, threats, and blackmail in this matter but this seems to be overlooked in the article section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.21.141 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unborn Children

[edit]

I find the following statement to be loaded and POV: "Ayotte has expressed her determination to be a strong vocal advocate for unborn children in the U.S. Senate." No one calls fetuses "unborn children" except those with a pro-life POV. I'm going to make changes to this statement in an attempt to be neutral. -Laikalynx (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life people call babies in gestation as unborn children. You Pro-Abortion people like to dismiss the idea that a baby at all stages of development has a soul. The Pro-Abortion side is the only ones who think that a baby only has a soul until its final trip down the birth canal (and sometimes not even then).
The whole article is very biased against the Senator. "POV" indeed. Shove it up your ass. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Soul" is a religious concept and should have no place in abortion rulings. Nameimpossible (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the point was valid the language was unnecessary. And when will these women especially conservative women show respect for marriage and take their husband's last name?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.33.1 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flaws in article

[edit]

There are several flaw this article. One of them is the political positions section is so long. It looks like a campaign document because stated positions are sometimes politically motivated and not actions that the person acts upon.

Another flaw is the attorney general section is a someone's compilation of assorted cases.

I am not particularly interested in American politics so I do not desire to re-write this article. However, I did review some good articles recently and have seen some very good articles. Auchansa (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Should the Chris King vs Sen. Kelly Ayotte legal battle be added to this wiki article? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78691.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NPOV and the word "burden"

[edit]

Just for the record, when used as a verb, the word burden means "to bear a load" or "to carry a cargo", as defined by a basic source such as Merriam Webster. When used on its own, it would not necessarily qualify as WP:NPOV, although I would argue that it may not be an objective, encyclopedic word to use when discussing politics. Using a phrase like "unnecessary burden" "undue burden" etc. is where the burden of proof lies for editors. How can you prove something is unnecessary or undue, without a source? Original research and opinion are not allowed on Wikipedia. If phrases such as "unnecessary burden" or "undue burden", etc. can't be directly attributed in a quotation by a verifiable, reliable source (WP:V, WP:RS), those phrases should not be used. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vice presidential speculation source removed.

[edit]

The source used for the statement that the subject of the article has been considered a potential candidate for the Republican vice presidential ticket was this news story from 2009. It does not mention either vice presidential aspirations, nor does it mention Mitt Romney. Another source will need to be provided which meets the criteria for being verifiable WP:V, and from a relevant, reliable source WP:RS.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kelly Ayotte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kelly Ayotte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Republican

[edit]

I follow WP:BRD, not WP:REVEXP, so I generally expect the editor who adds bold new material to start a discussion on its merits. Since that hasn't happened, I'll start the discussion. Re. this edit, there are a number of issues. The claim that Ayotte is a centrist, sourced to National Journal, was removed with no explanation. National Journal is about a reliable source as you can find for coverage of members of Congress. The claim that Ayotte is a conservative Republican was added. The given sources are Inside Gov and On the Issues. Both websites seem to aggregate voting data about members of Congress, but I see no evidence that either source is particularly reliable here. I don't know what their methodology is, or if they have editorial review. Moreover, in neither source do I see content saying Ayotte is a particularly conservative Republican. Instead, we have many sources in the article saying she is a centrist and that she breaks with her party more than others in Congress. The phrase "Since her election and especially preceding her 2016 reelection bid, however, she has demonstrated more centrist tendencies" also seems unsupported by sources here. In which sources does it say "especially preceding her 2016 reelection bid"? That would appear to be either an opinion, which would need to be attributed, or WP:OR. I don't see how these recent additions improve the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Journal is behind a paywall, so I can't really review the information presented there. To assuage your concerns about sources, I also added one from the Washington Post and NBC News. If that does not suffice, please let me know. I'll be glad to add more. If any of the language offends you, please feel free to modify it or to add your own clarifications. Over the span of Ayotte's six-year Senate career, she has been described both as a conservative Republican and as a centrist. I felt that the language that I used was a good compromise. If you disagree, please feel free to change it. However, it is not accurate to flat-out claim that Ayotte is a centrist, tout court, without any mention of how her positions have evolved or how she was once viewed as a rather conservative, Tea Party-endorsed Republican. By the way, I don't think your wholesale revert follows WP:BRD, either. --TimothyDexter (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You peeps get bogged down so completely in the rules for the sake of rules, that you completely lose sight of the topic at hand, and how there might be a cleaner, easier way to reach a consensus. (Without using 3-dollar words, I might add.) First, you might both agree that hard "labels" do not always fit or make sense, or that there might be a single sentence or phrase that could convey the concept of conservative and centrist, depending on the time and subject, etc. And Timothy, I am a liberal (so I understand this problem), but there is nothing "neutral" in saying that she "evolved" from a conservative to a centrist. You might just as easily use the word "devolved". The word itself carries bias. Compromise is possible only when you can see the problem from the opposing position as clearly as your own. That applies to both of you, and everyone here. It takes real effort, but it can most certainly be done. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Gregg info in page is incorrect

[edit]

Judd Gregg is not a current senator. Judd Gregg was/is not a candidate 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.86.231 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. To what information on the page are you referring to? The article says Ayotte was preceded in office by Gregg, which is accurate. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kelly Ayotte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelly_Ayotte&oldid=1256904635"