Talk:Stacey Abrams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stacey Abrams. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130000013/http://www.staceyabrams.com/content/bio to http://staceyabrams.com/content/bio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120012925/http://www.selenamontgomery.com/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_48542&section=more_48542 to http://www.selenamontgomery.com/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_48542&section=more_48542
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213013220/http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/aspen-institute-rodel-fellowships-public-leadership/rodel-fellows-class-2013 to http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/aspen-institute-rodel-fellowships-public-leadership/rodel-fellows-class-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128111754/http://www.theroot.com/articles/lists/2014/09/the_root_100_2014/stacey_abrams.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/lists/2014/09/the_root_100_2014/stacey_abrams.html

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) 01:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Stacey Abrams Headshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversy over Campaign Donation and Back Taxes

In April 2018, Abrams wrote an op-ed for Fortune revealing that she owes $54,000 in back taxes and holds $174,000 in credit card and student loan debt. Abrams generated significant criticism (mostly from opposition) during the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election for donating $50,000 to her own campaign despite owing over that amount in federal back taxes.

I attempted to add the above information to the article on Stacey Abrams, but it was deleted because it was flagged as violating NPOV. I believe that the details about Abrams' donation and federal debt (cited clearly in an official Georgia financial disclosure statement and an AJC article) and the opposition criticisms of them (cited in another AJC article) are historical realities that truly affected the Georgia election. This was an ongoing controversy surrounding the Abrams campaign which she was asked about repeatedly as she ran.

I'll be happy to add further clarifying information if needed in order for it to be considered neutral and factual.

Deramerikanischekoenig (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Abrams generated significant criticism..." is not neutral. There's no evidence this is any sort of an issue, other than one Republicans are trying to make into an issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I live in Georgia, and this was one of the primary talking points of the election. Abrams was asked about it repeatedly, wrote the Fortune op-ed to address it, and so on. Please google "Stacey Abrams debt" (or something to that effect) and read the articles from reputable news sources (Money, AJC, FOX5, etc.) which consistently mention both the IRS back taxes and her campaign auto-donation. If you don't find "Abrams generated significant criticism..." to be neutral enough, the wording can certainly be altered, which would be preferred to erasing the content entirely.

Deramerikanischekoenig (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Haley

The mention of Haley in the lede is not only uncited, but clearly WP:UNDUE and doesn't have any pertinence to this article. Mélencron (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Claim of being legitimate governor of Georgia

Since narrowly losing the 2018 gubernatorial election, Abrams has repeatedly claimed she is the actual winner of the election and that Gov Kemp is not the legitimate governor of Georgia. Her position is that Kemp, who at the time of the election was the Secretary of State (making him in charge of election voting), had a conflict of interest and suppressed the turnout to the election by purging 670,000 voter registrations in 2017 and about 53,000 voter registrations pending a month before the election.

When asked in the NY Times: Is there any fear on your part that using that kind of language fans the same flames that President Trump has fanned about delegitimizing our elections? she responded with: I see those as very different. Trump is alleging voter fraud, which suggests that people were trying to vote more than once. Trump offers no empirical evidence to meet his claims. I make my claims based on empirical evidence, on a demonstrated pattern of behavior that began with the fact that the person I was dealing with was running the election. If you look at my immediate reaction after the election, I refused to concede

Later on, she states that while she doesn't have empirical evidence that she would have gotten more votes, she does believe there is enough to doubt the fairness of the election.

I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election.

In response, Kemp cites the record voter turnout of 4M voters and Georgia's record breaking voter registration prior to the election to rebut Abrams' claim.

It has been seven months since the election and this claim is still being made by prominent members of the Democratic party, Democratic Presidential Candidates Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg have both expressed they believe Stacey Abrams is the rightful governor of Georgia.

This is notable and should be included on her page. Especially because talks of delegitimization in our elections is a particular hot topic on both sides of the aisle. Dy3o2 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This certainly does not belong in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Violation - lead image

Again, I have removed the lead image, which was initially added by Volvlogia, and then re-added by Therequiembellishere, for the following reason:

The Circus is a program on Showtime. I have visited their YouTube site and went to the Portal for the program. Once there, I found the program the image was taken from. On the upper right on both pages, they're selling copies of the programme(s). While this looks like it's the official YouTube channel for the show, I see nothing on either page saying they've released anything under a CC license.

Here's their official website. At the bottom of the home page it says "© 2019 Showtime Networks Inc. and Showtime Digital Inc. All rights reserved."

Therefore I have deduced that the programme is under copyright. Nowhere does it say that they've given anything from it a CC license. YouTube allows users to mark videos with various CC licenses, but there's none on this one. I have watched the entire 2 minutes + clip and there's absolutely nothing about CC licenses on it either. I have therefore deleted the image and will shortly mark it for deletion using this rationale. Cassianto^Talk 12:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stacey Abrams in May 2018.png. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't say. Cassianto^Talk 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You missed File:Stacey Abrams campaigning in 2018.png, which is also in the article. wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So I did. I'll get on and remove it. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 18:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping that you'll also get right on with addressing – with a statement in the discussion on Commons – your opinion of the validity of "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" on the YouTube page from which the image is derived. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I will. As you were... Cassianto^Talk 18:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Origin of surname

Has she ever discussed the origin of her surname? I had always thought of “Abrams” as being a Jewish surname, and so I initially thought maybe she got it from marrying a Jewish man. But it turns out from reading this article that she is single and got the name from her father, a pastor! So I’m curious as to where the name came from. I hate to say this, but maybe a Jewish slaveowner? 63.231.140.53 (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What purpose does this line of questioning possibly serve that has any relevance? 2601:601:1200:8D60:F923:CEF5:E117:BE4C (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

confusing language in lead

In the lead, it says A member of the Democratic Party, she was the party's nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, but lost to Brian Kemp without conceding the election. However, the section in the body on that election makes no mention of "conceding", much less explain in further detail what "lost without conceding" means. I suggest the lead sentence be reworded to reflect the content in the body: A member of the Democratic Party, she was the party's nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election. Abrams lost to Brian Kemp, but claimed that the election was not fairly conducted. Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I think you make a fair point. The news was that Abrams accepted that she lost, but refused to concede the election because doing so would indicate she felt the election was fair.[1] The lead wording is not clear, and likely some WP:NOTNEWS editing at the time and the edits afterwards have made it this awkward. I am fine with your proposed change. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thanks! I noticed a reader on twitter wondering what "lost without conceding" meant in the article so I was looking for the answer and didn't find it either. I'm not familiar with the article or the person and didn't want to step on toes if this was a contentious issue. I'll make the change for now, and if anyone objects later we can discuss some more. Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, she ran against Brian Kemp, who was Secretary of State of Georgia at the time. Secretary of State is the position that..... oversees elections. And the way Kemp oversaw his own election as governor...questionable at best. Hence the issue with her not conceding and setting up an organization to push for voting rights reform. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

She has never won a contested election

I added that bit. Someone removed it as "not notable." I reverted the deletion. I am willing to admit I am not completely happy with where the addition fit into her electoral history, it seems a very important point. What say we let it sit a bit and see what other editors think? Frankly, not including it seems dishonest. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not how this works. The status quo ante stands until other editors agree that your addition is notable. Reverting again.AlsoWukai (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining how it works. I appreciate that. Is there some reason to suppress her election history? Ideally we would have one of those electoral history boxes showing clearly she has never had an opponent in a general election. Lacking that, it seems some verbiage is required to report the facts. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the Georgia General Assembly, 2007–2017 section is missing any information about her elections to that post, an odd gap. I looked at Mike Jacobs (Georgia politician) and Karla Drenner (both Georgia General Assembly) as examples; similar language in Abrams's article would be "Abrams was elected to the state house in 2006 and re-elected in 2010, running unopposed both times." as the first sentence in the General Assembly section. (I noticed in 2010_Georgia_General_Assembly_election that running unopposed seems to be surprisingly common in Georgia.) Schazjmd (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. All in all, it is a pretty nonstandard article. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What, precisely, would be the purpose of saying she "has never won a contested election"? Strictly speaking, it's not true. She won an election in the caucus to become minority leader.[2] And she defeated Stacey Evans in the primary for the Democratic nomination in the 2018 gubernatorial election. So, she was never opposed by a Republican in a general election to the state legislature? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

She also won nomination to her first term in the legislature by 51.1% in a three-way contested Democratic primary. JTRH (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

True. I added the 2006 election to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I very much appreciate all the research and comments. The reason for saying such a thing is because it says something important about her background and the state of politics in Georgia. Might we agree on wording along the lines of She has never won a contested general election.? This would avoid saying "Republican," which would sound partisan.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, would be interested in why you think it's notable. State legislative districts that are heavily one party or the other are very common in states that are gerrymandered to favor incumbents. JTRH (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JTRH and Snoogs. I don't see why we should highlight this, especially since she represented a dark blue district in the state legislature and many of these elections are uncontested. She's oh for one in contested general elections, and there's a big asterisk on that loss. I don't agree that "it says something important about her background" and what it says about the state of politics in Georgia is beyond the scope of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of politicians have never won a contested election. It's hard to understand why we would underline that in this or any other article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can tell when I'm beat. I thought it was important to note the sad state of gerrymandering in Georgia and her lack of electorial success. Thank you all for your comments.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In this discussion I am looking in vain for a Reliable Source, or better yet a significant number of sources, pointing this out. Without a source it is just WP:SYNTHESIS. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The statement seems to be true. I cited Andrew Sullivan's recent column. It certainly is not synthesis, as it comes from a single reliable source. But it seems including it here fails the tests of notability, or better importance. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It's easily verifiable through Georgia election records. JTRH (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Political bias

There is clear bias on this page that heavily leans to the left and is being propagated and protected by power users. UnsourcedChecker (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is no political bias, should some reference be added for "morbidly obese"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.178.114 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No, because there is no Reliable Source for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If the original comment is about the allegations of voter suppression in the Georgia governor's race, it is absolutely true that there were allegations of voter suppression. Presenting the existence of those allegations in her biography is both relevant and factually accurate. There is no bias involved. JTRH (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There's allegations in everything. Bringing it up in the summary section of her page is beyond ridiculous. I understand lower down in a more detailed section but up there it seems so out of place and liberal slanted UnsourcedChecker (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's actually the most prominent thing for which she's known nationally, so I think it's sufficiently important to go in the lead. Would your objections about the "liberal slant" be addressed by taking Kemp out of the phrase and saying something like "an election marked by allegations of voter suppression"? The existence (and credibility) of those allegations can be easily documented. JTRH (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the issue, we could simply add one or more of the 52 citations from Kemp's page on the subject. Centerone (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Gubernatorial election in lead

The lead should cover the gubernatorial election in the lead at greater length than one sentence. It's by far the thing she's most notable for, and the election itself was highly notable given the egregious voter suppression. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically it's two sentences right now: (1) she ran, (2) she lost and voter suppression. The lead should probably be expanded in its entirety. What do you propose adding? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at the last revision, which cut the lead significantly, and I agree with it. That was way too in the weeds on the election at the expense of talking about the candidate, who is the subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wording change affects neutrality

AlsoWukai Your "rv mistaken correction" edit replaces the sentence

She lost to Brian Kemp in an election marked by accusations that Kemp engaged in voter suppression. (Emphasis added)

with

She lost to Brian Kemp in an election marred by accusations that Kemp engaged in voter suppression. (Emphasis added)

I believe the replacement of the word marked with marred negatively affects the neutrality of the sentence. An election marred by accusations is implied to be illegitimate, which is not a conclusion that was reached by any neutral sources, while an election marked by accusations has no implications of illegitimacy, only indications that the accusations were made. This is a subtle, but important, difference, I believe. Please comment on why you felt the need to change the word back. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead contains misleading language about Abram not conceding in the 2018 election, and says that accusations of voter suppression by Kemp were "unproven" or "disputed". Neither of these are appropriate. First, a multitude of RS say she did concede. It was not a typical concession speech though, given that she highlighted the substantial voter suppression that Kemp had engaged in. Second, there is no need for "disputed" and "unproven" in front of accusations. "Accusations" already infers that it is not widely accepted. "Unproven" is incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Her "concession", or lack thereof, does not seem important enough to me to be in the lead at all, so I will take it out. I will invite Boomchickensoup35 and Mysterymanblue to discuss this to hopefully avert an edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

My edits were made for the sole purpose of adding context to information that I viewed to be misleading - stating that Abrams refused to concede while failing to mention her acknowledgement of a loss does not accurately reflect her reaction to the election results. I did not consider whether this information should have been included in the lead when I made my edit, and I am neutral on this issue. Mysteryman blue 18:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Mysterymanblue, fair. I think your edit was an improvement over the previous version. That "to this day" language that Boomchickensoup35 is pushing feels like a subtle POV dig at Abrams. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Boomchickensoup35, I pinged you so that you would hopefully respect WP:BRD and not edit war. Please self-revert and discuss. To address your edit summary, what Donald Trump does has no bearing on Stacey Abrams' page. Besides, Abrams acknowledged that she would not be governor, Trump has refused to acknowledge Biden's win. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Boomchickensoup35, stop with the slow edit war. Even if you don't violate WP:3RR, you can still be blocked for this behavior. I get that discussion didn't take off, but DISCUSS. I'm also pinging the other editors involved in reverting you: Schazjmd Kyjama Snooganssnoogans – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for someone to start the discussion but no one is bothering to dispute muboshgu, they are just deleting what I am added and not even arguing it why are you not calling them out for edit warring? When I am only putting facts on this page yet because people’s feelings disagree with the facts you do not want them to be stated? Boomchickensoup35 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to dispute Muboshgu's, and others', reversion of your edits, you will have to do it yourself. It isn't other editors' responsibility to make arguments for you. However, let me say that you are unlikely to succeed in achieving consensus for the wording you are attempting to insert. Just because Donald Trump's accusations of voter fraud are correctly labeled as "baseless" and "false" does not mean that ALL accusations of voter fraud (or, more accurately in this case, voter suppression) are false. We go with what reliable sources say. Reliable sources give much more credence to Abrams' claims of voter suppression than they do to Trump's claims of voter fraud. Trump's claims are based on outright falsehoods, misunderstandings, and the analyses of discredited "experts". Abrams' claims of voter suppression are based on actual actions taken by Republicans that reliable sources do indeed consider to be examples of voter suppression. Actual widespread voter fraud is vanishingly rare. Republican efforts to suppress voters, especially minority voters, is remarkably common and discussed thoroughly in reliable sources. When the facts are different, the situations are treated differently. NonReproBlue (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Boomchickensoup35, you have made no arguments to explain why you think the content you are adding is WP:DUE. I'm not sure what you mean about "waiting for someone to start the discussion" when it began on the 14th. Abrams has acknowledged the loss, so whether she ever said the word "concede" is meaningless. And you need to address Snooganssnoogans's arguments on the "accusations" wording. When you make an edit that other editors object to, you must get consensus through discussion to include it (especially on WP:BLPs). Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources do not support the "unproven" language. Sources also do not consistently say she did not concede (many RS explicitly say she did). It was an atypical concession speech because she recognized that she did not win but highlighted voter suppression in Georgia. The long-standing lead appropriately summarized the body, including the 2018 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The allegations of voter suppression are allegations just that. People are not objecting to my edits they are just deleting them because they disagree with them and do not like the truth. There was no voter suppression there was record high black turnout and saying that there were less polling places does not matter because when more and more people vote by mail there is less need for voting in person. As for the use it or lose it law it was passed by Democrats with their support in the early 2000s and it was his job the purge the voter roll he did not choose to by will. If you get purged from the voter roll you just have to register to vote again not hard and not suppression I will keep adding my edits to her page because they are just pure facts she has not conceded just because she acknowledges loss that does not mean she conceded and her allegations are baseless and unproven your only getting on my case when I am only adding facts and proof to her page while others are actively delete information because they do not disagree with the facts. Boomchickensoup35 (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are being undone because they are unsourced original research. Volunteer Marek 17:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This page needs to be unprotected to correct factual inaccuracies

Voter suppression is a myth that is perpetuated by the Democratic Party and this record needs to be corrected to present both sides of the story. ColdPluto (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

ColdPluto, thank you for demonstrating why this page needs to remain protected. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Under "Political Positions - Israel" change "But she voted against Georgia's anti-BDS legislation..." to "However, she voted against Georgia's anti-BDS legislation..." to make the sentence flow better and be more grammatical. 71.193.169.188 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done MediaKill13 (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong book title

Her upcoming book is called WHILE Justice Sleeps, not WHEN Justice Sleeps.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KSRQ7L1/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2

96.250.59.103 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we change the main photo

Stacey_Abrams_in_May_2018a

The angle used (below the subject) is a technique to make the subject look more authoritative (literally a propaganda technique). I don't think it's ideal for Wikipedia. We should just use neutral passport-style portraits (it's OK to use the most flattering one, of course). There are a ton of better photos on Commons to use. Here's the best one I think, which is already used in the article, but could best be used in the lede. 2600:1012:B003:E4FC:5CDD:9CC2:AE8E:8589 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Voter Suppression Accusations in lede

Seems like there is disagreement between myself and Snooganssnoogans over how we should talk about Abram's allegations of voter suppression and whether these belong in the lede. Right now there are 4 cites attached to this claim in the lede. Our best source is an article which talks about a 'controversy' regarding primarily the cancellation of inactive voter registrations, in alignment with longstanding Georgia law. This law was recently upheld by a court. Another source links to a journalist's personal blog and just mentions that a lawsuit has been filed against Kemp. I'm going to go ahead and remove this source, because someone filing a lawsuit and posting it on their personal website is not a reliable source and gives zero indication as to the facts or merits of that particular suit. Then there are sources from CNN and NPR that generally just directly air Abrams' grievance over the state of Georgia election law and her refusal to concede, using direct quotes from her. Meanwhile our lede is more or less insinuating that claims of voter suppression are well documented or have serious merit (keeping in mind that voter suppression implies that specific groups are being targeted for disenfranchisement, a claim for which we don't have any citations in this article that I can see), when the evidence cited seems mainly to indicate that Abrams and allies do not like the state of Georgia election law. If we have evidence that voter suppression is occurring and isn't just standard partisan accusations, the lede makes sense. Otherwise needs removal or substantial rewording of this sentence. TocMan (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It is incorrect to frame the voter suppression issue as a dispute between her and Kemp. Many, including recognized experts, characterized Kemp's actions as voter suppression, not just Abrams. You have now edit-warred long-standing text from the lead.[3] The text should be restored unless you can find consensus for your change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to concede the issue if you provide any citations that back your preferred view. As I explained, it isn't supported by the sources in the article. Just because text in an article is "long standing" does not mean that it is correct, and there is no Wikipedia policy I'm aware of that prefers a particular phrasing just because it has gone uncorrected for a long time. Thanks. TocMan (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple individuals, including recognized experts, in the body who characterize the election as involving voter suppression. It's misleading to characterize it as strictly an Abrams accusation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly an article on Abrams and therefore should state that she accused him of voter suppression, not some vague statement that there were accusations of it. Numerous Republicans falsely claimed that Trump lost due to election fraud yet his article states that he personally made those accusations. Bill Williams 22:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion of 2018 Gubernatorial Campaign

The wiki article needs to be updated and finished. It is incomplete. The author should do it, I certainly do not plan to do it. As I understand it Abrams narrowly lost the gubernatorial election to Brian Kemp. I have no special interest in the outcome of this election but find the handling / response of Abrams very disturbing. NYT piece Nov 18, 2018 said, "Stacey Abrams ended her Democratic bid to become governor of Georgia on Friday, acknowledging that she did not have the votes to beat her Republican rival, Brian Kemp, but sounding a defiant note by declaring that an “erosion of our democracy” had kept many of her backers from the polls." But there was no detailed description of the expression in quotation marks...Ms. Abrams, 44, represented the 'diverse future' of the state ... home to black colleges and hub of black political power...Ms. Abrams, while acknowledging Friday that she could not win, did not concede (the outcome) either, (claiming) “More than 200 years into Georgia’s democratic experiment, the state failed its voters,” The Times clearly discredited Kemp including smear accusations accusing him of having ties and allegiances to Trump... Wiki should also not be politically biased in allowing controversial interest politics to be aired on Wiki pages.Danleywolfe (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

She refused to concede.HumbleConservative (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting you consider statements that Kemp had "ties and allegiances to Donald" to be "smears". Could you explain why that is? DS (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Guest appearance on Star Trek Discovery.

Stacey Abrams made a guest appearance on Star Trek Discovery as the President Of United Earth in the season 4 finale titled "Coming Home". I would like to read about her acceptance of the guest spot also her experience in honoring the role for Star Trek? Possibly an interview by Wikipedia regarding how she felt about being in Star Trek and what future influence she wishes for her appearance in the SciFi series?

Thank You Kindly, Mr. Oz Almaguer humancupid@live.com Greeley, CO. 2601:283:2:1430:F859:C40D:8A0:FDC9 (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

She was recently featured as the President of Earth in Paramount +‘s Discovery Season 4 finale. Her being a huge fan of the show she was excited for the opportunity when Star Trek: Discovery showrunner Michelle Paradise and co-creator Alex Kurtzman approached her for the secret cameo 2601:58B:900:F670:556D:9664:BC85:12B9 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

“Voting rights”

“Voting rights” is editorializing. All people already have the right to vote. There is debate about whether Abrams’ proposed measures make elections more accessible or if they open the door to fraud. Calling her advocacy for “rights” is choosing a side.

Change it to “voting reform” to be objective. Goblintear (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There is ample evidence of voter suppression in the United States, so much so that we even have an article about it post-2020 election. If one has to wait in line for hours to vote and they can't, their right to vote has been impaired. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in the past, present, or future. So, no, I disagree with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no voter suppression in the United States. -HumbleConservative (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone has the "right" to vote. If you want to change the process of doing so, that is reform. Goblintear (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

So because people don’t have patience that means their “voting rights are being suppressed”? 1000 IQ logic Dyldyl9 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Photo with children

Stacey Abrams was photographed with a bunch of masked schoolchildren, while maskless. She is morbidly obese and the poster child for at-risk covid comorbidities, while every child in the photo is not at risk for covid. This hypocrisy should be covered on her wikipedia page because it is making the rounds in the news. 2600:1012:B001:9200:AC73:800C:AB9E:6707 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lets give it just a little while, we don't want to breach WP:RECENTISM, but yes it is quite undeniably making a stir. So I'm sure it will be added. EliteArcher88 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I say no. Not biographically significant to Abrams. Just another minor flap that her political opponents, like this IPv6 it appears, want to hammer over and over. Coverage like this about politicians getting "tripped up" over COVID restrictions could potentially be useful in the appropriate COVID-related article though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well when a person refuses to follow their own rules they want other people to follow, it really shows what kind of politician she is Dyldyl9 (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

She doesn't have "her own rules". I imagine she abides by the rules when masks are mandated. Were they when she took that photo? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Just "recommended". However, Abrams says she wore a mask to the event and took it off to read to the children. The only people who care about this story appear to be those with an axe to grind - it took place on the 6 February and I can't find a reliable source mentioning it since 9 February - so it wasn't a persistent story. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The only people who care about this story appear to be those with an axe to grind - Bingo. If she was wearing a mask, we'd be hearing about her engaging in "hygiene theater" or whatever. This isn't an issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

She has never proven voter fraud in 2018.

Perhaps treating her false claims of voter fraud in 2018 can be written with the same passion as those comments about Trump’s claims of voter fraud in 2020. Or does party affiliation matter? OHnative23 (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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)