Talk:Gabby Giffords/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External links

See User talk:Utahredrock for discussion on the controversial external links. Will move to this page if not resolved in the short term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahredrock (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This site has too many external links, as Wikipedia is not a link farm. The links to the blogs need to go per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #9. The endorsements could be mentioned in the article, and then referenced. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference?

What's the reference that Giffords was only with Price Waterhouse for six weeks? If that is the case it may not be worth mentioning.--Utahredrock 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding relations with Israel comment

The comment needed more context beyond the external linke provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.145.198 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not post propaganda to the Wikipedia

To Giffords campaign staffers and others:

Wikipedia adheres to a strict Neutral Point Of View policy. Pitchman's views of candidates' records cut and pasted from websites are not appropriate. Be matter-of-fact. Cite others' value judgements if appropriate, but do not offer your own.

Bkalafut 08:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

???

I posted the material you called propaganda. I am neither a Giffords staffer nor a Democrat. The material came from research to better understand her record, and her supporters. "Propaganda" is a subjective concept. It frustrates me when such a word is thrown out and material related to a candidate and their background is just deleted. I spent a lot of time researching this article. Please explain in more detail why you find this objectionable.

15 years ago I worked in politics [GOP]. One thing I feel very strongly about is making it easier for citizens to find information on candidates outside of the racket of campaigns with all of their fundraising requirements and restrictions.

I would like to restore the deleted information, however, I am open to hearing further your reasons for deletion. --Utahredrock 17:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I removed those sections

Perhaps outright removal was a bit heavyhanded, but the way to talk about a candidate's record in a NPOV fashion is to give how they voted on this bill or that, not by quoting supporters. Statements of positions ought to be matter-of-fact. It was the inclusion of positive testimonials which ultimately prompted deletion. The Robert Reich testimonial, especially, was inappropriate from an NPOV.

Bkalafut 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that

To user Bkalafut I appreciate your comments above. When it comes to political candidates understanding the record and the positions of those who know them best is critical to understanding who they are. Where you see propaganda, I see things like "endorsed by the Sierra Club." Not everyone thinks the Sierra Club is a good thing so knowing that they support a candidate will be viewed as good and/or bad propaganda depending on the perspective of the reader. NPOV should not mean No Information. --Utahredrock 18:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Amnesty"

It never ceases to amaze me how people like Giffords can espouse their belief in guest worker programs, 'routes to citizenship', 'normalization' of status, 'regularization' of status, etc and not call these things what they are: Amnesty for illegal aliens that broke the laws of the United States. Whether it is pandering for votes or allowing cheap subsidized labor by U.S. taxpayers for U.S. Big Business, Ms. Giffords and President Bush are on the same side on this issue. I guess issues of depressed wages for Americans, closed emergency rooms and a health care system stressed by illegal aliens, abdication of U.S. sovereignty and autonomy, intolerable stresses on our education system by the children of illegals (who should not be 'anchor citizens'), increased crime and incarceration costs, and environmental destruction by illegals of our beautiful Arizona desert, etc don't seem to resonate with people of the Giffords and Bush ilk.

At least have the integrity to call it what it is (AMNESTY) instead of misleading euphemisms that are nothing more than Orwellian Doublespeak.

Disgusting. (end) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that people don't get how important WP:V and WP:NOR are to wikipedia. Instead, they want THEIR view of the world to be reflected in the articles. In this case, if Giffords used the term "amnesty", then quote her (with an acceptable source); if someone (other than a person in the opposite party, or a commentator known to be partisan) said "She supports amnesty", then quote that person (with an acceptable source). Otherwise, please consider getting a blog, where no one will object to your explaining exactly how the world really is. John Broughton | Talk 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote? Politicians should have the integrity to use words appropriate to their platform instead of engaging in duplicity. The whole point is the avoidance of the word 'amnesty' for policies that are de facto amnesty, by definition. It is not I that engages in semantic acrobatics, it is disingenuous folks like Giffords and Bush who engage in this exercise. The article sounds like it was written by the campaign and lacks objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect with your "amnesty, by definition" comment. Amnesty is: "a general pardon for offenses." This is _not_ the case if someone has to pay back fines, etc., which these proposals, in fact, do. -- Sholom 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the sky is green too. How are things in La-La Land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed that section to reflect that her opponents accuse her of wanting amnesty and she denies it. This is not a blog for you to post your political gripes. It is an encyclopedia, please respect that. Dklangen 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the section regarding how, upon his candidacy verses Giffords, the Republican Party backed away from his campaign and subsequent funds for his campaign. That may be more indicative of the loss rather than holding the 'extreme' view that existing immigration laws should be enforced. Apparently, this is a radical notion in this day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that. I accidentally removed it among the other changes you made, but I've added back in with a citation. Before reposting anything controversial, you should attempt to reach a consensus with others here on the talk page. johnpseudo 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Supporting your position with quotes from the biased AZ Republic sourced from the interpretation directly from the Giffords campaign is hardly balanced. This page was so completely lopsided before my involvement, so your sanctimonious self-congratulations are hardly warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.223.135 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason to be uncivil. If something is considered controversial, it needs to be carefully worded to achieve a neutral point of view. My quote from the AZ Republic was used to 1. Cite the fact that the Republican party cut their support, and 2. An opinion of why, by the Giffords campaign. Regarding #1, I could have used [1] or [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706031/posts], but it doesn't really matter to me. Regarding #2, I'll work on making that a little more neutral.

However, referring to Giffords' immigration policy as "de facto amnesty" is not only biased and uncited, but also incorrect. For one, how can one prove what a person "hopes" to do except by listening to their professed goals[2]? Second, as "Sholom" said above, amnesty's definition is not compatible with either her past actions or her professed goals[3] (McCain Plan) johnpseudo 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for a wide margin of victory

Indeed it is true that 4 ballot initiatives to restrict illegal immigration rights passed in AZ. I'm not sure whether that implies (as some have written) that the immigration issue wasn't important in the race against Graf. It may well be the case that voters wanted more restrictions, but viewed Graf's position as way too restrictive. I just don't know. It may be that Graf was too far to the right on other issues. I'll note that the initiative to ban same-sex marriage failed in AZ. (OTOH, it was only 51% to 49%). Just don't know yet . . . -- Sholom 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Marriage in Arizona is already defined as that between a man and a woman (that already passed a while ago). The ballot proposition that would amend the state constitution that you refer to was narrowly rejected. Your failure to point out this distinction is a serious omission or one by-design to inject your point of view. How convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that it is not our place here to make that determination, any more than we should make POV accusations about either candidate (or any candidate). That one added sentence seemed factual and relevant and reasonably NPOV, which is why I left it in. If you can find an even more neutral and fact-based way to cover that aspect of the election, go for it. Karen | Talk | contribs 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe that the Republican party spending $250,000 against Graf in the primary and withdrawing $1,000,000 from Graf (as a result of his win in the primary)in the general election is a likely contributing factor in the loss as well. Nice try. No one seems to want to talk about that here and post it in the article. That would be far too even-handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Republican party withdrew their advertising support seems pretty non-disputable. You should go ahead and add that back in. Any guesses as to why they did so, or what the result would have been otherwise should only be added with citations to reputable sources. I just reverted your entire edit because it was easier than having to go in and weed out all the amnesty POV. johnpseudo 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean no one wants to talk about it? In fact, I previously added it in to the elections page. Clearly, the GOP didn't spend money for Graf because he was considered less likely to get elected. (Similarly, the GOP spent money to support Lincoln Chafee in his primary, although his opponent was much more mainstream-GOP). The question I was attempting to address is why did Graf seem so unelectable in this district. (Also, please sign your comments) -- Sholom 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the passing of the propositions to counter the ridiculous view of the national press indicating the election was a referendum on enforcing existing illegal immigration laws, a point patently absurd and unwarranted. I dislike Bush and many of his policies, and I'm an independent, unlike Sholom and Pseudo-boy who grant the Democratic party absolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:

• please stop personal attacks -- in fact, I wrote above that there were reasons to not consider this election as related to immigration issues; and I don't grant anybody absolution
• please sign your comments
• please stop violating the WP:3RR rule
• please consider cooperation in your editing of this article

-- Sholom 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you'd like to change the wording of 1. Bush's proposals from "immigration reforms" to "amnesty for illegal aliens" and 2. the wording of Gabrielle's denials from "flatly" to "tenuously", please argue these points specifically instead of making personal attacks. #1 was discussed above, and any further arguments should be a continuation of that discussion. I've started a new section for #2 below. johnpseudo 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Denials - "Flat" or "Tenuous"?

According to [4], her exact words were "I don't support amnesty. Amnesty is giving a free pass." Whether or not her policies can be defined as "amnesty", she is certainly flatly denying the accusation. A "tenuous argument" is one open to interpretation or refutation. A "tenuous denial" would be a denial that is open to interpretation as well, such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". johnpseudo 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is grossly imbalanced and distorted thanks to Sholom and Pseudo-Boy who can't handle opposing points of view and do not themselves seek to add other factors (such as Republican party pulling $1 million in funding from Graf). I'm not even in the guy's district, by the way. Gee, think that may have been a part of the cause for defeat? Cowards. Keep the garbage article as it is then. A propaganda piece with half-truths lauded by illegal- alien amnesty apologists, Giffords being one of many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.223.135 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Sockpuppet,

• please stop personal attacks -- in fact, the $1 million that the GOP pulled was a fact that I added myself to Arizona 8th congressional district election, 2006, and to United States House elections, 2006, long before you ever raised the issue, and where it more properly belongs. If you want to put it in here, too, be my guest.
• please sign your comments
• please consider cooperation in your editing of this article

-- Sholom 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Woops (image)

Woops, we both added an image at the same time. I'll defer as to which one is used - I just didn't want it to get separated forever because the infobox was removed... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Including Religion in Infobox

Figured we should get this started. Although you are changing the infobox styles, the only substantial difference in this revert war is the fact that her religion is included. I assume UtahRedRock's reasons for wishing the information to be omitted are along the same lines as her birthday (personal security). Once again, typing "gabrielle giffords" religion into google will get you her religion if you want to find it. The information also appears on her own website if you look hard enough. What reason is there to omit it? johnpseudo 15:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's different from the DOB info in one major way: it is more subject to issues of voter tolerance. It shouldn't be so, but there are people who mistrust others for being from a substantially different religious background from their own. (JFK's religion was a big issue back in the day, and even Kerry had problems over it.) It seems to me that if a candidate actively mentions the affiliation, then it's appropriate to list it here, but if not the listing is more problematic. Based on that one fact, voters might assume that a politician will vote in certain ways, whereas the politician might have a very different set of views. On the other hand, if the info isn't hard to find, then that may be an overly cautious view of things. Personally I'm satisfied whether it's included or not, but I kind of see both sides here. Karen | Talk | contribs 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gabby Watch external link

External linking to "gabby watch" violates both WP:LINKS Rule #11 (don't link to blogs) as well as the rule regarding biased or malicious content on WP:LIVING. To those who continue to add this link, please engage in a discussion here on this talk page. johnpseudo 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Programmer's Guild material

This huge influx of material from BobHeath concerning the opinions and actions of the Programmer's Guild is 1. Non-notable, 2. Original research, and 3. Lacks Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to express personal beliefs or to advertise for your cause. Before re-adding the material, please seek consensus here. johnpseudo 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed changes- "Opponents claim that such visas displace American high tech workers, which would seem to run counter to her being a Democrat, which reportedly has traditionally supported interests of the American worker. The Programmers Guild has presented an objection to the H1B Visa from the perspective of the US high tech worker. Giffords introduced her legislation one day after testimony by Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the United States House Committee on Science and Technology. Microsoft is one of the countries' leading employers of H1B recipients. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited by the United States House Committee on Science and Technology to give testimony that would rebut Gates' testimony."

1. The words "Opponents claim" are Weasel words and should be replaced with specifically which opponents made the claim. This needs a reliable source as well.
2. "would seem to run counter to her being a Democrat" - to whom? needs source.
3. The source for the programmer's guild presenting an objection is from a blog, not an independent, reliable source.

johnpseudo 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have gotten the message. Please see WP:SYN and WP:PSTS. Let's take one sentence to serve as an example: "Opponents claim that such visas displace American high tech workers, which would seem to run counter to her being a Democrat, which reportedly has traditionally supported interests of the American worker."

You sourced this with a link to the Democratic issue page ([5]). However, that page says nothing about H1B visas, or about what their opponents say about them, or about Gabrielle Giffords. A proper source for a statement on Wikipedia will say exactly what you are claiming in the statement. Arriving at the statements you are making from the sources you are giving requires original research. What you need, for this example, is a newspaper/magazine/book stating that "Opponents of the H1B visa bill claim that visas displace American high tech workers. Gabrielle Giffords' support of the bill runs counter to the Democratic Party." I doubt you will find such a source. johnpseudo 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What huge influx? I submitted two short paragraphs with 13 citations. JohnPseudo totally denuded the paragraphs and even removed all of the citations. Citations that included the House of Representatives themselves.

I have no relationship with the Programmers Guild. I am not citing original content. I cite the Programmers Guild twice. The other eleven citations cite Wikipedia, the United States House of Representatives, the Democratic Party, the Center for Immigration Studies, and Information Week.

John Psuedo as he calls himself has denuded the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me- this is about the article. If you aren't creating your own content, please link to where the content is derived. Until you can do that, and until the source you link to is a reliable source (not a webblog), the content doesn't belong in the article. johnpseudo 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What authority do you have in denuding these two short legitimate paragraphs? Giffords introduced legislation about the H1b Visa by her authority as a congresswoman. This is a forum for the discussion on her performance as congressman. If Giffords does not like the comments, perhaps she should not propose this legislation.

This talk page is not a forum or chat room (WP:FORUM) to discuss Gabrielle Giffords. This page is for discussing improvement of the article. Please address my concerns that I've listed above concerning the quality of your sources and the originality of your content. johnpseudo 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never proposed that this is a forum or chat room. You are constantly changing the subject and not negotiating in good faith. Congresswoman Giffords proposed legislation and I wrote two short paragraphs with 13 citations describing the legislation, and you corrupted and denuded the articles. I have addressed your concerns by listing 13 citations. I resent your characterization of my comments as being related to Programmer's Guild. I have no association with the Programmers Guild. - Bob Heath

Your words: "This is a forum for the discussion on her performance as congressman". I don't think and haven't suggested that you are associated with the Programmer's Guild, and I wouldn't care if you were. I don't have an issue with the number of citations that you added. My issue is that those citations only support bits and pieces of the content you're trying to add. You allege that Giffords' actions run counter to Democratic principles, and that there were people being excluded from the H1B visa hearing. You need sources for those allegations before they can be added to the article. johnpseudo 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article that you vandalized said that no one representing the high tech worker was invited to testify to rebut Bill Gates claims. I cited the Committee's schedule to support that. Then you denuded the entire article. However my citations included Gates' testimony. So both sides were heard in the two short paragraphs that you vandalized. - Bob Heath

Johnpseudo, I have reentered the two paragraphs that you previously vandalized. Please do not vandalize this article. If you have objections to specific points that I have made, please list them here, and we can discuss those issues. Thank you. - Bob Heath

Johnpseudo, You vandalized the article again! Please be cooperative and allow an honest characterization of this issue. Thank you. - Bob Heath

When you take primary sources, such as that committee schedule (which says who testified), and collect them together to push a larger point (that the committee was somehow negligent in not inviting rebutting opinions), that's called Synthesis, and is against Wikipedia policy. Also- the onus of consensus is on the person trying to add content to an article. Therefore, please seek consensus here BEFORE re-adding your material. johnpseudo 01:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with that part of the article let's talk about that part of the article. Please do not vandalize the entire two paragraphs. The citation is the ENTIRE schedule of hearings by the committee to which Bill Gates spoke. Again, I have listed both sides of this issue, which is something that Giffords does not want to happen. Thank you = Bob Heath

We can't start talking about the article until you stop making personal attacks on me. I am not an "agent of Giffords". You have no reason to think so. I only deleted content that was WP:OR or did not have Reliable Sources- which was the entire two paragraphs, but let's just start with this particular segment. You need to address my concern- which is that the citation (committee schedule) doesn't support your implication (that the committee was somehow negligent in not inviting rebutting opinions). johnpseudo 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this issue with you, but please stop vandalizing the article. Also, I would be happy to discuss segments of the article that you dispute, but please dispute segments of the article, not your interpretation of the article. Nowhere in the article are the words 'somehow' or 'negligent' used. Being an agent of Giffords is not a personal attack. I noticed that you have been engaged in editing her Wikipedia page for a couple of years now. Actually, I don't know if you are employed by her or Microsoft or whoever. I have seen reports that Microsoft pays Wikipedia editors to edit out content that is not to their liking. I am sure that is the case now. I am not sure who you are working for though. But all occurrences of the words 'negligent' have been removed, because they were not there to begin with.

So if you want to correct the article, fine. Just please identify parts that are not accurate, and please don't create a false argument by objecting to parts of the article that do not exist. - Thank you - Bob Heath

Jesus Christ, man! I am just an ordinary person who happens to contribute regularly to Wikipedia. And I didn't say that you used "the words 'somehow' or 'negligent'". I am saying that when you state that Gates was invited, and then you say that people rebutting Gates were not invited, you're implying that anti-Gates people were purposefully excluded, which is not supported by a simple committee schedule. johnpseudo 02:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I am implying. I am not implying anything. I am clearly stating that "No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions". I am using the website for the United States House of Representatives as a citation. If you don't believe their site, call them. Their phone number is (202) 225-6375. They will confirm to you that they did not invite anyone "representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions".

You are not an ordinary person. You are someone who is trying to prevent the free exchange of accurate information. So please, if you have problems with any part of this article, let's discuss it. Please do not vandalize this article again. - Thank you - Bob Heath

JohnPsuedo,

If Gabrielle Giffords does not like this story, perhaps she should modify her behavior in way in which she does not engage in this behavior. She and Bill Gates and advocates of the H-1B visa have been trying to force feed this issue down our throats. The everyday programmer doesn't have a voice in Congress like Bill Gates. This is accurate information. Your behavior does not make it inaccurate. Your objections to my thoughts or what you consider my implications are not relevant. The two paragraphs are accurate and well documented with my citations. Your sabotage of this story is wrong. Please stop vandalizing this story. Thank you - Bob Heath

The issue is their location. Extensive discussion of the controversy over H-1B visas belongs on that page, not in this biography. Readers looking for further information beyond the fact that they are controversial and (rightfully) opposed by labor groups, can easily click on the hyperlink to the H-1B visa page to get details on the arguments, pro and con.

To dispel any notion that there is bias here, let it be known that I am strongly opposed to expanding guest worker visas. FCYTravis (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article does not involve extensive discussion about the H1B visa. This discussion involves legislation introduced by her and the circumstances related to her introduction of that legislation. Thank you - Bob Heath

You removed my editorial privileges. I cannot edit this anymore. You have concealed Giffords behavior. Congratulations for destroying this information! The truth will get out in spite of your efforts. You should be ashamed of yourselves! - Bob Heath

I have not removed your editorial privileges. I have temporarily protected the article so that the edit war will cease. Please endeavour to discuss the proposed section here on the Talk page, rather than making accusations of bad faith and vandalism. FCYTravis (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I would love to work something out. How do we go about that? If JohnPseudo is a proxy for Gabrielle Giffords, how can we get someone unbiased to mediate? I believe that the circumstances related to her proposing this bill is relevant to her being a US Congresswoman. It is no coincidence that this bill was introduced one day after Bill Gates' testimony to a committee to which she belongs. And Microsoft being the leading employer of H1B recipients whose company is headquartered in the US is relevant to this story. Also, the fact that the two companies that exceed the hiring of H1B recipients being headquartered in Bangalore, India is relevant to the story. Also the lack of rebuttal testimony is relevant to this story. Thank you - Bob Heath

As I have repeatedly indicated in this discussion, I believe that JohnPseudo is not coming clean about his relationship with Gabrielle Giffords. He has been stonewalling my efforts by deleting my short two paragraphs over and over again. While he was deleting the paragraphs he asked me to cite my sources, which I did. He accused me of being with Programmers Guild, which I am not, and said that being related to Programmers Guild would preclude me from quoting Programmers Guild. He has accused me if implying something. He has objected to content fabricated in his mind that I did not create. Then finally he got a Wikipedia editor to denude the comments in spite of the paragraphs receiving well respected citations supporting the arguments. His behavior constitutes stonewalling and bad faith.

Congress has repeatedly given a podium, as if he needs one, to Bill Gates to make baseless claims about the shortage of IT workers in the US. When using that podium, Gates makes these baseless claims to giddy politicians without any scrutiny or any rebuttal. This happens over and over again. Politicians are only too happy to comply with Gates' wishes. According to OpenSecrets.org, Gates and Microsoft have donated $50 million to political campaigns since 1989. So inspite of rampant unemployment in the high tech industry, Gates has been able to make these baseless claims on the Congressional Record with impunity. Wikepedia in its ideal form is a place where the truth can be exposed. Giffords and her proxy, JohnPseudo, have been stonewalling my efforts with baseless assertions about my article to further their efforts to stifle honest discussion about this issue. If Gabrielle Giffords and her proxy, JohnPsuedo, have their way only Bill Gates' position will be heard.

The circumstances related to Giffords introducing this legislation is relevant to her biography. The credibility of Wikipedia is at stake. If politicians want to stifle debate, they can do as Microsoft has reportedly done by hiring proxies to edit and create content that is supportive of themselves. Thus, Wikipedia becomes another PR outlet for the politician. - Thank you - Bob Heath

JohnPseudo's behavior has reached a new low. He is now modifying the discussion area to modify my position. If he cannot succeed in denuding my arguments with a sound argument, he resorts to modifying my position by destroying my comments. Like I said, JohnPseudo is operating in bad faith in order to stonewall my efforts in presenting a clear and concise description of Gabrielle Giffords in her and her committee's effort to stifle public debate about this very serious issue. JohnPseudo, please stop modifying my comments and please stop stonewalling me in my effort to provide accurate information about Gabrielle Giffords. - Thank you - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the appropriate policy regarding personal attacks (WP:NPA). It says, "some types of comments are never acceptable:...Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." It is a generally accepted practice to delete personal attacks, because they add nothing to Wikipedia. Stop making these attacks and start addressing my concerns regarding the article, and maybe we can make some progress. You still seem to think that this talk page is a good place to argue about H1B visas, Bill Gates, and Gabrielle Giffords. This talk page is for talking about improving the article. I have listed my objections to your content over and over again, but you continue to ignore those objections and instead make personal attacks. johnpseudo 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

JohnPseudo we have been over and over that. I have thoroughly addressed the issues, but you resort to tactics that demonstrate your bad faith by 1. modifying my discussions in this discussion area, 2. objecting to points in your imagination, points that I did not make, 3. objecting to what you believe are my implications instead of my explicit words, 4. deleting my comments without any authority. Gabrielle Giffords submitted her proposals on the day after Gates' testimony. That is a fact cited by reputable sources. You deleted that comment. Bill Gates is the founder of Microsoft, the largest employer of H1B visa recipients of any company headquartered in the US. That is a fact, cited by reputable sources. You deleted that comment. The only two companies hiring more h1b visa recipients are companies headquartered in Bangalore India. That also is a fact, cited by reputable sources. You also deleted that comment. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before Giffords' committee in order to counter Gates's testimony. That also is a fact, cited by reputable sources, also deleted by you. All of those comments were removed by you acting on behalf of Gabrielle Giffords to stonewall the honest flow of information on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a private Public Relations device for Gabrielle Giffords to use for her propaganda purposes. Hiring JohnPseudo is a device for creating original content. JohnPseudo, please stop editing my discussions, and please stop deleting accurate well cited data about Gabrielle Giffords. -- Thank you -- Bob Heath

Proposal by Bob Heath

I propose the following two paragraphs to describe Gifford's support of the H1B visa. -- Thanks - Bob Heath

Position on H-1B Visa

Giffords has introduced legislation that will increase the cap on the controversial H-1B Visa from 65,000 per year to 130,000 per year. If that is not sufficient, according to her legislation, the cap will be increased to 180,000 per year. The H-1B Visa is controversial and subject to abuse. The Programmers Guild engages in a vigorous campaign exposing what it considers abuses of the H-1B Visa.

Giffords introduced her legislation, HR6530, one day after the testimony of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the House Committee on Science and Technology requesting an increase in the H-1B Visa cap. Microsoft is the leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients of companies headquartered in the United States, and the third leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients worldwide behind two companies headquartered in Bangalore, India. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions.

Comments on Proposal

1. Youtube is not a reliable source, and therefore cannot be used. Please see here: WP:RS for information on what is a reliable source. johnpseudo 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. You need reliable sources to support the position of the Programmer's Guild. johnpseudo 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3. The fact that Giffords introduced controversial H1B visa-increase legislation is already contained in the article. Any further discussion about H-1B visas, Gates's testimony, and Microsoft's position on the visa issue belong on the H-1B visa article, here: H-1B visa. johnpseudo 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments about continued stonewalling

1. The youtube video is reliable and speaks for itself.
2. I am citing the Programmers Guild.
3. The fact that Giffords introduced this legislation the day after Gates' testimony is totally relevant and related. Gates being the founder of MSoft and the largest employer of H1B visas headquartered in the US is totally relevant. The fact that the two companies that exceed Microsoft in the hiring of H1B recipients are headquartered in Bangalore, India is totally relevant to the discussion. And the fact that no one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify to counter Bill Gates testimony is also relevant. Plus all of these issues are well cited.

JohnPseudo's position on this speaks for itself. This is just a continuation of JohnPseudo negotiating in bad faith. Thank you - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. It is Wikipedia policy that self-published sources (YouTube, blogs) do not constitute reliable sources for biographies of living people. The content/quality of the individual video doesn't matter. Please see WP:V: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." In your proposal above, I saw no source given for the Programmers Guild's opposition to the bill. Earlier you used their blog, but as I said, according to Wikipedia policy, blogs are not reliable sources. If you find a reliable source that mentions a link between Giffords' legislation and Gates' testimony, then we can include it. Otherwise, linking the two here simply by using the committee's schedule and the bill's introduction date is synthesis. Please read these links to Wikipedia policy that I'm giving you. Otherwise, we'll be arguing in circles. johnpseudo 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"I saw no source given for the Programmers Guild's opposition to the bill." - YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Does one have to cite Copernicus to reference that the sun will rise? That NOW opposes restrictions on abortion? It is the exploitation of WP rules like this that make WP increasingly useless for anything that is remotely controversial. You're obviously a paid hack, and yes, that's a personal attack. I suppose "She supports the military (just not the mission) is real NPOV too? What WP needs is a way to rip editors away from pages that they have turned into their little personal propaganda farms so these sorts of abuses get canned. That's my opinion, so go ahead a delete it now, and prove me right. 65.222.194.138 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand you full well. You are stonewalling in bad faith.

1. The youtube video speaks to the abuses of the H1B visa, the visa that Giffords bill proposes to increase, the essence of Giffords bill. The video clearly identifies those abuses.
2. The cited Programmers Guild web page speaks about the H1B visa, the visa that Giffords' bill proposes to increase. It itself is well cited with references to many sources, including numerous academic studies. There is no need for me to provide additional sources.
3. The only self published material is material published and destroyed by you on behalf of Giffords.
4. The circumstances relating to the recent testimony of Bill Gates about the H1B visa, and the lack of rebuttal testimony, is central to this discussion. The number of H1B visas by Microsoft and the two companies from Bangalore India are totally related to the bill that Giffords introduced and therefore relevant to her. The events in which she participated in the days surrounding her proposed legislation provides a backdrop for the legislation introduced by Giffords. Giffords participated in the event that allowed testimony in an environment that did not provide for rebuttal testimony.

Your behavior from the beginning has been to be a roadblock, to be a stonewall, and to vandalize the content that I have presented. The activity presented here may or may not reflect poorly on Congresswoman Giffords, and may or may not reflect poorly on her judgment. Her judgment is crucial to a clear understanding of her. Whether it reflects poorly on her judgment, is up to the Wikipedia user to determine. Denying the user crucial information as you and Giffords propose does not further the needs of the Wikipedia user. The reason that this is relevant to her is that this gives a backdrop to the legislation that she has introduced. It gives a backdrop where the user of Wikipedia can examine her judgment relating to this legislation. Wikipedia is not a public relations tool that is to be manipulated for Giffords by her proxies. It is a tool to present information that is well documented and well sourced. That is something that I have done. The fact that this might reflect poorly on her judgment is the reason that you have been so vigorous in your stonewalling my efforts. You are attempting to deny the Wikipedia user crucial information about the decision making process that Giffords uses in proposing legislation that effects her district and the rest of the country. If she is uncomfortable with the legislation, she should withdraw the legislation. If she is still comfortable with the legislation, she should support it. But instead, she chooses to stifle opposing viewpoints with the shallow tactics employed by you. You are deliberately attempting to withhold and roadblock well cited accurate information. This does not help the Wikipedia user to develop a more thorough understanding of Gabrielle Giffords. - Thank you - Bob Heath

ALL Youtube videos and blogs are self-published, by definition. If you won't read the policies, and you continue to attack me personally, I'm done dealing with you. johnpseudo 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have never dealt with me in good faith. - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion by Slp1 I have never heard of Gabrielle Giffords or the H-1B Visa before today. The paragraph proposed by Bob Heath is an inappropriate addition to WP, and is an example of original research and synthesis, in addition to using unreliable sources. Specifically:

• Youtube cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia, and especially a Biography of living person
• The sentence The Programmers Guild engages in a vigorous campaign exposing what it considers abuses of the H-1B Visa. is unsourced.
• The two sentences "Giffords introduced her legislation, HR6530, one day after the testimony of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the House Committee on Science and Technology requesting an increase in the H-1B Visa cap. Microsoft is the leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients of companies headquartered in the United States, and the third leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients worldwide behind two companies headquartered in Bangalore, India" are Original research and synthesis. In order to include this information we would need to find a reliable source making a connection between Giffords and Microsoft. Sourcing the details (ie that Gifford introduced the legislation, that Bill Gates testified, and that Microsoft employs visa recipients) but not that anybody else has commented on the connection between these facts makes it original synthesis, and therefore it would be contrary to policy to include it.
• The sentence No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions is also original research and cannot be included unless you can find a newspaper, magazine or other reliable source making this claim.

Wikipedia has very strict rules on the biographies of living people and the proposed sentences cannot be included under this policy.

Finally, Bob Heath, unless you have specific evidence that johnpseudo has a conflict of interest in this matter (and not just that he has opposed your edits,) you must cease your claims of malfeasance on his part. To my mind, his edits have merely pointed out appropriate WP policies and guidelines. If you do have specific information about a COI then the place to report a conflict of interest is here WP:COIN.--Slp1 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sip1, before today, did you know JohnPseudo? Are you an unbiased reviewer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob, as another outside observer wandering in, do not accuse everyone of bad faith. I would highly suggest a change in tone and strategy immediately. If you continue, you will find your editing privileges severely limited here. Regarding of any perceived conflict of interest (and if you are making the allegation, you have the burden of proving it), John has an accurate view of policy here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. This dispute, as primarily pursued by Bob heath, rapidly ballooned beyond what the informal WP:3O process can handle. Accusations that Johnpseudo is acting for the subject are entirely inappropriate. Slp1's outside opinion, which should be read carefully by anyone who doubts this, is quite on the mark. — Athaenara ✉ 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision of H-1B Visa entry

Giffords has introduced legislation that will increase the cap on the controversial H-1B Visa from 65,000 per year to 130,000 per year. If that is not sufficient, according to her legislation, the cap will be increased to 180,000 per year. The H-1B Visa is controversial and subject to abuse. The Programmers Guild is a professional society examining the propriety of the H-1B Visa.

On March 13, 2008, Giffords introduced her legislation, HR6530, one day after the March 12, 2008 testimony of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the House Committee on Science and Technology of which Giffords is a member. Bill Gates testimony involved requesting an increase in the H-1B Visa cap. In the year 2006, Microsoft was the leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients of companies headquartered in the United States, the only US headquartered company in the top five, and the third leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients worldwide behind two companies headquartered in Bangalore, India. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions.

• Sip1, you have made it clear that before today you were not familiar with the H-1B Visa or Gabrielle Giffords. Before today did you know JohnPseudo?
• I have modified the article to indicate that the Programmers Guild is a professional society examining the propriety of the H1B Visa with citations to the Programmers Guild.
• I included information with citations that Giffords is a member of the committee to which Gates testified.
• The youtube video is evidence of abuse of the H-1B Visa, the visa for which Gabrielle Giffords introduced her legislation. I have made it clear that it is reference to abuse of the H-1B visa.
• Citations of the House of Representatives bill that was introduced by Giffords is dated March 13, 2008. The House of Representatives reference of the Bill Gates testimony is dated March 12, 2008. Most people should be able to deduce that March 13 occurs one day after March 12.
• The final objection of Sip1 is resolved by the citation of the Committee's schedule. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker appears on the schedule of the House Committee of Science and Technology schedule.

I hope that these modifications satisfy your concerns. - Thank you - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 April 2008

Bob, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. This is not a place where you can publish your opinions/thoughts/conclusions about Giffords however well justified they may be. We report what is verifiable from other reliable sources. You need to produce a newspaper, magazine or a book making the exact claims you make. You cannot attempt to prove the point yourself, no matter how much 'proof' of that point you think you may have. It does not matter how many citations from House committees or other sources you provide, if the "point" has not been published elsewhere it cannot go into Wikipedia. You need to read and inwardly digest these policy articles No original research (particularly the section on Synthesis) and verifiability. It also does not matter how much you insist, but youtube (and wikipedia now) are not reliable sources for this or any article.

Bob, Wikipedia works by policy, guidelines and consensus. There are four editors, John Pseudo, Athaenara, FCYTravis,[6] and me who disagree with your proposed edits. All four of us are longstanding editors here and two are administrators. Your most recent proposed edit still does not satisfy WP's policies and cannot be included in the article. I will also add that your accusations against John Pseudo and now me are entirely inappropriate, and you should know that sanctions (e.g. WP:BLOCK) are sometimes applied if editors continue to disrupt WP after warnings are given. I beg you to stop and rethink your approach. This essay WP:TEND may help explain things more. --Slp1 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sip1, I resent your insults and your dishonesty.

Sip, wait a second, I resent the accusation that you and JohnPseudo have made publicly about my publishing "my" documents. You have either not read my citations or you are corrupt. I consider your comments an insult, a challenge to my honesty, and fundamentally dishonest on the part of you and JohnPseudo. Your comments are totally disenginous and is the root cause of my claiming bias on the part of JohnPseudo. I DID NOT create the documents from the United States House of Representatives, which is the source of the majority of my citations! You and the cronies of JohnPseudo, from cloak of anonymity are trying to block totally legitmate information quoted from many legitimate sources. JohnPseudo's internal network of anonymous editors constitutes a secret society that stifles outside opinion without the scrutiny of outside review. Many companies such have Microsoft have been known to hire corrupt Wikipedia editors, operating under the cloak of anonymity, to secretly further their cause and exploit the corrupt nature of the Wikipedia internal secret society.

In good faith, I have attempted to cite legitimate sources, those sources being the United States House of Representatives, only to be blocked by JohnPseudo for arbitrary reasons who has regularly blocked other uncomplimentary articles about Giffords over the past two years also for arbitrary reasons. Now he has brought in three additional anonymous Wikipedia cronies to further this dishonesty and deception.

Not only do you block the public data that I have I identified, you insult me with your dishonesty claiming that I created the citations from the United States House of Representatives!!

Your ability to block me from edits that speak honestly to the power of Gabrielle Giffords speaks to the corrupt nature of you and the therefore the corrupt nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia seems to be composed of corrupt editors operating from the cloak of anonymity to fabricate falsely complimentary information of their benefactors, and delete honest challenges to their power.

In addition the ability of you to edit and delete comments is one thing, but to edit and modify this discussion is another. JohnPseudo has exercised that power. When he cannot win an argument with a sound argument, he modifies my discussion of the issues to further his cause. [text deleted by Slp1 due to BLP violation]] The only thing that you have accomplished is arousing my disdain for you and Wikipedia for Wikipedia's corrupt nature and the ability to further their cause through a network of anonymous corrupt Wikipedia editors who maintain a corrupt internal secret society who is unaccountable to the external world.

The reputation and perception of integrity of Wikipedia will not last long if the activity that I have experienced is allowed to continue. Many news accounts of the abuses of the anonymous corrupt Wikipedia secret society exists already. This kind of activity will only add fuel to the fire of critics of Wikipedia.

Again, I resent your insults that I am creating this data. You have either not bothered to read my citations or you are corrupt. But this experience has been useful to me. Now I know how Wikipedia works internally. Now, I know how this can be tool of the powerful to further their cause. Now I know why Microsoft spends so much time soliciting corrupt editors to further their cause. Now I know and understand the corrupt nature of Wikipedia. Thanks for the education. - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I do not doubt your sources. I did read your citations. I did not imply that you are creating the data. I am telling you that you cannot put these sources together to make your point. This is not allowed here. If you can find a reliable source that says that Gifford is X, we can report that. But you yourself cannot use this encyclopedia to synthesize A and B and C together to prove X, as you have been told several times. BTW, as a Canadian, I am highly amused by the thought that I am a member of a secret society for an American politician I had never heard of before yesterday. --Slp1 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While you utter your assertions of being amused from the secrecy of your anonymity I view you and JohnPseudo as people with disgust and outrage! Your claim about being unbiased from the safety of your anonymity is just that, a claim, a baseless claim. And given your abuse of that anonymity, I view your claim of being unbiased with a great deal of suspicion. You are not unbiased; in fact you are biased. You use the Wikipedia with abuse to further your own cause and further the cause of your secret society who has shown contempt for honesty and a balanced discussion of the issues. Anyone who would fail to recognize the US House of Representative's website as a citation for the activity of the US House of Representatives, is simply stonewalling and dishonest. - Again, thanks for education - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we need to revisit [portion redacted due to BLP concerns by Slp1]. But I think that we need to leave out the part where Sip1 and JonPseudo try to intimidate people that want to get the truth out! - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob, again as an outside, you should read our civility policy. You need to immediately stop insulting and make baseless accusations at other people. It is not productive nor cooperative and does not help create an encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation for H-1B depression of wages and learning incentive

"The visas are opposed by labor groups, including the Programmers Guild, which claim that they depress wages overall and provide a disincentive to search for American workers.[citation needed]"

National Science Foundation:

Note: First year(FY 2006) of 20,000 H-1B exemption for foreign nationals attaining postgraduate degree in U.S. colleges.

2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818) Effective date: March 8, 2005. [Sec. 425].

Filing date for FY 2006 H-1B 4/1/2005

H-1B Computer-related and Writers with a Master's degree earn less than Bachelor's degee holders in same occupation.

2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818) Effective date: March 8, 2005. [Sec. 425].

Filing date for FY 2006 H-1B 4/1/2005

2006 Computer-related H-1B Average Salaries: Bachelor’s Degree = $56,000.00 Master’s Degree = $55,600.00

2006 occupations in Writing Bachelor’s Degree = $37,900.00 Master’s Degree = $37,500.00

(updted for readability) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.28.1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c3/tt03-29.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.28.1 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 76.167.28.1 for this work. Unfortunately, this won't work as a citation for "The visas are opposed by labor groups, including the Programmers Guild, which claim that they depress wages overall and provide a disincentive to search for American workers", because you are just showing the facts about salaries, rather than a citation that shown for the specifics of the sentence. For example, we need something from a reliable source that shows that the visas are opposed by labour groups, and what these labour groups claim. It is not clear to me that this sentence really needs to be in an article about Giffords, but here is a reference from the Washington Post that would probably do the deed once the page is unlocked.[7] It states that "Some groups, such as the Programmer's Guild, charge that importing foreign labor depresses wages for American employees and hurts the efforts of minorities to make inroads in technology," so only cites the first part of the sentence.Slp1 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about more like this:

Some groups, such as the Programmer's Guild, charge that importing foreign labor depresses wages, citing USCIS data where Master's degree holders earn less than undergraduates in the same occupational groups,[1] and foreign labor hurts the efforts of minorities to make inroads in technology. [2]

(The programmer's Guild is referenced in the H-1B wiki)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmers_Guild

[1] New H-1B Masters degree holders earn less than new H-1B undergraduates in Computer-related and Writing occupations, during first year of H-1B 20,000 visa exemption for postgraduates of American colleges. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c3/tt03-29.htm

[2] Federal Commission Says Minorities Key To Filling High-Tech SlotsReport recommends measures to boost number of women, minorities, disabled. http://www.crn.com/small-business/18834301

"The commission's findings come as Congress is considering boosting the number of visas to allow foreigners to fill vacant high-tech positions. The so-called H-1B visa program currently allows 115,000 immigrant workers per year to enter the U.S. to fill high-tech slots. An increase to 200,000 is under consideration, but some groups, such as the National Urban League are against the increase, claiming U.S. workers, namely minorities, should be tapped first. Last year, Congress raised the cap on H-1B visas to 115,000 from 65,000."

These references should probably be added to the H-1B wiki... I don't see a section for "Opposition to H-1B labor shortage claims" in the wiki and I'm new to editing.

1) The Urban Institute

2) The Sloan Foundation

3) The Rand Corporation

4) Harvard University

5) Duke University

1) The Urban Institute Urban Institute report disputes shortage of STEM grads. Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand http://news.cenews.com/article.asp?id=1035&page=1 http://www.urban.org/publications/411562.html

2) The Sloan Foundation Annual Report – Education and Careers in Science and Technology http://www.sloan.org/report/2006/sciwork.shtml

3) The Rand Corporation Is the Federal Government Facing a Shortage of Scientific and Technical Personnel? http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB1505/index1.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/2005/RB1505.pdf

4) Harvard University How and Why Government, Universities, and Industry Create Domestic Labor Shortages of Scientists and High-Tech Workers http://www.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

5) Duke University Study: There Is No Shortage of U.S. Engineers http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2111347,00.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.28.1 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi 76.167.28.1, welcome to Wikipedia. First, you always sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Second, I realize that there is a steep learning curve here, so don't worry about asking questions, you are doing fine so far.

• This is an article about Giffords, not about the visa program or about the Programmers Guild, so anything we add needs to be focussed on Giffords and her opinions, including whether critiques of these views/actions have been reported in reliable sources. Your proposed sentence appears to be more appropriate for the article on the Programmer's guild or the visa itself in its current version. As for your suggestions at the bottom, I agree with you that they do not appear appropriate for an article on Ms. Gifford, since they don't seem to have anything to do with her, but might be suitable for the H-1B visa article, though you would need to check out whether the criticisms are being published by reliable sources (not just blogs for example) and are from notable groups/organizations. In particular, the article from the Urban Institute specifically states that the views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders, which makes things very clear for that one. There certainly seems to be some useful information to be gained out of these, but you should discuss this at the H-1B visa page, not here.
• With citations you need to cite exactly what the sentence says. In other words, for your proposed sentence, you would need to find newspapers, magazines or books that talk about the Programmer's Guild, what their position is and what statistics they cite. If you notice, the Washington Post article that I found does this (but only for half the sentence). It is not enough for you to cite original statistics as you have done. Please also note that I am also not sure whether www.crn.com would be considered a reliable source with the kind of editorial control required.

Hope that helps.--Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

first Anglo Democrat since Morris Udall

I don't see how you can classify Representative Giffords as an "Anglo" considering she's an Ashkenazi Jew without family ties to England or the Anglo-Saxons (if you want to get literal). I'd add that I don't think 'Anglo' belongs in a Wikipedia article because many people take offense to it and, as the article on 'Anglo' clearly demonstrates, it means different things to different people. Finally, the factoid itself doesn't seem to be all that notable-- there are many "firsts" she can stake a claim to and an infinite number of "first since [someone else]" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.144.107 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad point: changed to "first non-Hispanic" - should verify this however. Tvoz/talk 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

he:גבריאל גיפורדס

i'd like to ask the Administrator to add he:גבריאל גיפורדס. i've written the hebrew article. thanks! good day. --212.199.128.152 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} --212.199.128.152 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

External links (template)

Please replace the relevant individual links with this template:

• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Financial information (federal office) at the Federal Election Commission
• Profile at Vote Smart

This will fix the link error for OpenSecrets as well as provide consistency with other Reps and Senators. Keep the 'official House site' and everything from 'official campaign site' on. Thx. Flatterworld (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I made this edit.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New category

Could the administrator in charge please add this article to the following category: Category:Jewish American Democrats (United States)? Mdmace91 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A wikiwide decision was made to delete this whole category (and about a dozen similar categories).--Utahredrock (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

Tvoz, the sentence I deleted was inaccurate before and after your edits.

Giffords was preceded by an anglo (Jim Kolbe). I also don't think Udall represented this district ever, but I know no hispanic has represented it for over 20 years (if ever).--Utahredrock (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - I wondered about that which is why I said it should be verified. WOnder why it was there in the first place. Tvoz/talk 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto executive?

How can you call G. Giffords an auto exec?

At best she is a former auto executive and even that seems hardly relevant (or accurate) for her info box.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[comment below moved from utahredrock talk page]

By occuption, I don't mean current. Obviously, she's is currently serving as a Congresswoman. However, I am filling in this box as to show what members of Congress did prior to entering public service (I am in the process of expanding information on all members who served during the 110th Congress to show their place of residence, alma maters, and religion as well). Since Giffords biography states that she was previously president of El Campo Tire, I listed automotive executive as her profession. If you think that this sounds confusing, then perhaps adding 'former' in front of this title may help? Mr. Vitale (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I will add the word former, but I am still troubled by "auto exec" for somebody who ran a tire business. Granted the tires are for autos, however, to me it is misleading. I think of auto execs as executives at automakers, and certainly not those in the business of selling tires.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

One more comment. I believe Giffords may have ongoing business interests that have nothing to do with the auto or tire business. Not sure about that though and also don't think it's relevant (unless more info is publicly available) to this bio.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Yes, I know that auto executive sounds like she's a vice president at GM or something, and not running 4 or 5 tire stores. But I couldn't think of a good title for her. I didn't want to put down tire salesperson or something that would sound stupid. If you think of a better way to say it, feel free to change it. Mr. Vitale (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure with what other businesses Giffords may be involved. On her personal biography, the only profesion she lists is her tenure as president of the tire business. Mr. Vitale (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe this information is both inaccurate (as worded) and unnecessary for an info box. It seems appropriate to include in the body of the article and I think it’s already well covered there. Also, I tried to edit the info box but failed. I added the word “former” before occupation. If that’s your intent, then I urge you to change the info box to include that word or at least have the option since some members of congress may have ongoing occupations in addition to their DC jobs. As for Giffords, her immediate former occupation was candidate, prior to that it was state senator. If anything state senator seems to fit your intention best, but that too as already clear in the bio.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] The article says she is managing partner of something or other and she obviously is a politician. I am assuming that information is correct- someone should verify it. "Former auto service exec" or whatever you had is not clear and way too detailed - "businesswoman" is more appropriate - you don't need that level of detail about former occupation in the infobox. By the way, "candidate" is not a profession, except maybe for someone like Norman Thomas ... Tvoz/talk 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to verify her status as a politician prior to the US Congress. It is well known and sourced that she served as an AZ state senator.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[moving this comment to better place in chronology, esp. if edit war is over]--Utahredrock (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit

The Tvoz edit has since been changed twice. I reverted after the first change, and have since asked for additional input.

It is very misleading to call Giffords an automotive business owner. Her family's business sold tires--and with G. Giffords at the helm they sold the whole business. Tvoz's edit was much better.

Hopefully others will weigh in.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Once more: the article says Giffords is the managing partner at Giffords Capital Management, a property management company based in Tucson. That does not sound like an auto service company. First you need to verify that she is indeed managing partner of that company, and if so, leave the infobox as businesswoman. The tire company appears to be earlier, and it is covered by businesswoman. This is a ridiculous thing to edit war over. Tvoz/talk 04:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tvoz The Tvoz edit addressed my immediate concern. Thanks to one of Wiki's finest editors.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tvoz/talk 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit War, Ha!

Your edit war comment made me laugh. Acutally, Red Rocks and I were having a very civil discussion on this, and I was attempting to make an accurate represenation of her profession. Just like like they say in a hockey fight, please don't be the third man in. Mr. Vitale (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're amused. You're still in violation of policy. Discuss your differences and come to a consensus - don't keep reverting or you'll buy yourself a block. I'm done here. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide input. I suppose this is about whether she should be characterised as a "Politician; businesswoman" or as a "Politician; small automotive business owner" in the infobox. That's a trivial matter, really, but I prefer the former. It's less convoluted and the specifics of ther occupation are noted in the main text.  Sandstein  05:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on positions?

1. "Strongly supports the military" Who wrote this? It reads like a campaign ad. Does she like Mom and Apple Pie too? 65.222.194.138 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Structure

This article had a bizarre approach to chronology – mostly backwards, sometimes forwards, sometimes none at all. I've rearranged the sections and tweaked the section titles to make it more closely resemble the vast majority of our BLPs of politicians. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)