Talk:Stacey Abrams

Generalized "Author" vs. "Romance Novelist"

I have several times reverted edits that changed the description, in the lede and elsewhere, of "author" to "romance novelist." My sense is this is meant as a POV disparagement, as if romance novels were somehow less than other things someone might author. Anyone else care to weigh in? Czrisher (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

while i agree that author is the preferred title, surely its notable that the books were of the romance/erotic variety? Right now theres zero mention of arguably the most interesting aspect of her early writings - their unabashed erotic nature https://www.glamour.com/story/stacey-abrams-is-a-published-romance-novelist-and-her-books-are-fabulous Dragonfangxl (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What Church is Supporting her by letting her use them for her platform ?

What Church has allowed her to Campaign there and in doing so made a Statement that all of their Parishioners agree with her views”? 2601:CF:4780:4290:F9F5:AFFC:1FDE:69E9 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Abortion conspiracy theory

On 2022Sep21, Abrams said; "There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks, It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body." This is patently inaccurate (a heart exists, and is beating) and it includes three separate wild accusations; that the sound of the heartbeat is "manufactured" (ie, false, or a misrepresentation), that the persons who created the "manufactured sound" are men, and that the purpose of that sound is a part of a "design....to take control of a women's body." This is patently ludicrous on every level. It reveals a great deal of misunderstanding of biology, a wildly offensive slur ("They sneakily created a fraud sound") of men, and their plotting objectives (to take control of women's bodies (laughable.)). This utterance needs to be added verbatim to this article, in the Positions (a new abortion section?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Except that what Stacey Abrams said about the "fetal heartbeat" being a sound manufactured by the machine is absolutely accurate.[1] Buried past the political nonsense in this article, it says According to the ACOG, it is “inaccurate to use the word ‘heartbeat’ to describe the sound that can be heard on ultrasound in very early pregnancy.” “In fact, there are no chambers of the heart developed at the early stage in pregnancy that this word is used to describe, so there is no recognizable ‘heartbeat,’” the organization writes online. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What she said is accurate. The entire anti-abortion movement is aimed to take control of women's bodies, not to protect lives. Dimadick (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense 2601:205:8380:9B60:74A5:B49:695D:DE27 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This IP should be blocked for WP:POVPUSH. They've been making fringe edits like this for over a year. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Category question

Should Abrams be included in Category:American election deniers? Pinging Doncram, Toa Nidhiki05, and Politrukki, who've all edited to add/remove the category. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

She unquestionably qualifies. She has denied the fairness, legitimacy, and result of the 2018 election and refused to concede defeat - that's pretty clear election denial if I've ever seen it. If she's not in the category, it should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you cite a source (preferably more than one) that describes her as such? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you want a source that calls her an election denier, or sources where she denies an election? Either would be valid, in my opinion - I wouldn't think a source using the specific words "election denier" is all that's required, if a figure is self-evidently denying an election. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged. I recently created Category:Election deniers with belief that it can be objectively determined whether a person is known as an election denier, i.e. one who promotes/advocates known-to-be-false conspiracy theory of election(s) being stolen. Like the leaders of whatever Flat Earth society can be identified as flat-earthers. And I searched in Wikipedia for occurrences of "election denier" and similar, and added the category to a number of bio articles where the term seemed to be well-supported. This article popped up, to my surprise, as different than all others. I saw that the Wall Street Journal article characterizes Abrams as having a "rhetorical" version of election denial, but it does seem to be election denial, and that application of the category made sense. However, in the future use of the category may yet be limited to those persons who are primarily known as election deniers (which Abrams is not), or for whom election denial is very substantially a widely known defining characteristic or such, so maybe the category will not apply according to such a refined definition for the category. But currently, yes, I think it is established that she has very publicly claimed, repeatedly, a false conspiracy theory that an election was stolen, contrary to reality, so the category does currently apply. --Doncram (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

However, it has evolved that Category:Election deniers, like other BLP categories, should be limited to cases where the term is a "defining characteristic". For Abrams, it is not, so I do not support use of this category. --Doncram (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Defining characteristic is the standard for nearly all categories, including non-BLP ones. Editors frequently argue whether certain articles meet the standard for inclusion. Dimadick (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"voting rights activist"

Try election outcome denier. This woman still thinks that she has won the race in 2018. And the same hypocratical people who critised Trump for behaving in the same way remain entirely silent when it comes to Democrats. 80.131.59.31 (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)