Talk:Gabby Giffords

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)

Metaphor Alert

"Personal Life" section, 3rd graph, 4th sentence.

"On May 31, 2008, Kelly rocketed toward the heavens for the third time as Commander of STS-124."

71.168.138.244 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo update?

Should the photo of Ms. Giffords be updated? It looks like she has a new offical photo. I'm can not edit and would not know how even if I could. The photo is available here http://giffords.house.gov/Working_atDesk_cropped.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztony (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 03:09, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis protected Gabrielle Giffords ‎ ([edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
• 03:15, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" ‎ (edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist)
• 21:44, 19 May 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" ‎ (reduce to semi-prot [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)

That was well over a year ago so I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. As well as welcoming comments from regular editors I've contacted FCYTravis, the protecting admin. --TS 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reason is forthcoming it seems like this article should be opened up. - Schrandit (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

immigration section

The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa, it doesn't belong in an immigration portion of the article. Thanks. Parallel process (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in introduction

I have removed the last sentence of the introduction, which read: "She claims to be a Blue Dog Democrat though her voting record has led some to question that claim, noting that she has voted with liberal Nancy Pelosi 94% of the time." This is on several grounds. Firstly, the statement is founded on a factually inaccurate premise. The Blue Dog Coalition is an actual grouping of House members. Giffords is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, which makes her a Blue Dog Democrat: there is nothing to "question" on this. Secondly, the statement does not represent a neutral point of view, by attempting to create the impression of controversy on grounds that have not adequately been justified. Thirdly, the statement does not meet the lead section guideline of being representative of the article as a whole, since no such dispute or "questioning" is mentioned anywhere in the article itself. Fourthly, the source for the statement falls well short of the verifiability benchmark, being a site which brands itself as having a "blatantly conservative worldview". Cyril Washbrook (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of Impartial Tone policy

The Gun Rights section is technically accurate, however its incompleteness makes it one-sided. I would like to add the following: "Giffords touts her status as a 'long-time gun owner.'(1) In 2008, she joined in the amicus brief for the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the appellate court ruling that overturned the controversial DC gun ban.(2)

1) http://giffords.house.gov/2008/09/VOTESTOREPEALBANONHANDGUNSINTHENATIONSCAPITAL.shtml

2) http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuSenateHouseMembers.pdf

I would also like to expand the "Outsourcing" section to a more complete and accurate "Immigration" section which would include the following edits and additions: "In 2008, Giffords introduced legislation to raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa) from 65,000 per year to their pre-2003 levels of 130,000 per year. Detractors, including programmers' unions, felt the increased cap would put existing workers at a disadvantage. Supporters of the increase, such as Microsoft Founder Bill Gates, said the move was necessary for high tech companies to recruit and retain world-class high-skilled workers.(1)

"Arizona's 8th Congressional District is one of 10 in the country bordering Mexico. Giffords has been an advocate for stronger U.S. – Mexico border enforcement, sponsoring or cosponsoring legislation to increase Border Patrol personnel in the region and provide them with 21st century technology (H.R. 1867). Giffords supports stronger penalties against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She sponsored the Employee Verification Amendment Act (H.R. 6633)(2) and cosponsored the New Employee Verification Act (H.R. 5551)(3) to improve federal programs to verify citizenship of new employees (4).

1) http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid183_gci1306494,00.html

2) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06633:

3) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05515:

4) http://giffords.house.gov/2009/10/effort-to-extend-improve-employee-verification-program.shtml

Beyond these specific changes, I am still concerned that there are users making edits to this page who are not making them in good faith. Of particular concern is user Parallel Process, who seems to have a history of only adding questionable statements to Democratic candidates wikipages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Parallel_process) I'm not sure what procedures Wikipedia has in place for these situations, but I wanted to be sure and flag it for you. Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Outsourcing

Economic issues, such as outsourcing, are as relevant as any and do indeed belong in this article. Using documentation to show the H1b is used mainly by outsourcing companies is important, otherwise the section makes no sense. I believe some editors may feel this section is an attempt at a biased attack; it was not meant to be any such thing. Actually, many would argue that outsourcing is good for the economy. Giffords' supporting outsourcing is neither positive or negative, it is merely a fact. Parallel process (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it say that H-1B visas are mainly used by outsourcers, though? "Five of the top 10 were Indian outsourcers. The complete list of 200, however, shows a mix of foreign companies, U.S. technology vendors, and American universities. Microsoft is number three on the list, IBM number eight, and Oracle USA number nine. The New York City Public School system ranks twenty-second on the list, with 642 H-1B visas received last year."[1] I don't see that text supporting the assertion that the main users of H1-B visas are outsourcers, though. Has Giffords said anything on the record about why she proposed the bill? —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Found a statement from her spokesman, C. J. Karamargin: "Giffords sees the importance of H-1Bs because Southern Arizona has been growing as a hub for tech companies, Karamargin added. 'There's a need to stay competitive and keep the momentum growing,' he added. 'That means making sure the talent is available to drive the local and national tech economy.'"[2] —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's getting there. The section is coming together, but the section seems to be a bit 'awkward' when reading. Needs to be smoothed out. Parallel process (talk) —The preceding comment was added on 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

"The bill would have restricted the number of H-1B employees in companies with more than 50 employees." Citation needed. Please add. Parallel process (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

It's the same citation as the following sentence. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorable Title

It's not commonly used, no other HR members I checked have such a title above their names. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Aaron Shock, Nancy Pelosi,John Boehner, ect. None have it. It would seem it is Wikipedia policy not to include the title. Parallel process (talk) —The preceding comment was added on 23:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

More, it is not custom/project policy in articles on US politicians to include the titles. (By contrast, for Canadian MPs, the title field is used—see Sheila Copps by way of example.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a US Rep. The title should not be displayed. Parallel process (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Abortion

I can't find any reference to the Hyde Amendment in the source cited (citation #9: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3920). Can anyone else find that there or at another credible source? Also, I would question the impartiality of the loaded term "elective abortion." Agreed? Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:BLP. The statement needs to be sourced properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Just to note, per this discussion, User:Stephanie4815162342 has a conflict of interest in regard to the subject of this article, and is aware of Wikipedia's rules regarding editing with a COI. From what I can see, she has been following that policy, making suggestions here instead of editing the article directly. Editors, however, should be aware of her circumstance, which is the purpose of this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"poor organization"

Thanks for the insult - I won't waste any more time on this "campaign flyer" article. Someday you might figure out this is an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Congresswoman reported shot

NPR reports that the congresswoman has been shot http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona The article should perhaps be protected until there are more information? --Kristjan Wager (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if the speculation/addition of unsourced information gets out of hand, or if it starts to be a target for vandalism. That said, I've moved the blurb about her being shot to the section on her Congressional tenure, because it happened at a "Congress on Your Corner" event. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of reports of the shooting (e.g. by CNN) that make no mention of Giffords. We should exercise great caution while there are still conflicting and unclear reports. CIreland (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN says that Pima County sheriff has confirmed 12 people injured. As for Rep. Giffords, all they say is, "It is feared that Congresswoman Giffords is one of them." Apparently there is no official confirmation about the Rep. Gifford's condition.--Janus657 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN has also run a banner headline echoing the Tucson Citizen report that she was shot in the head. Accordingly, we should wait to be sure that what's going into an encyclopedia article about Giffords is backed up by multiple reliable sources, and preferably sources that cite the Sheriff or other official sources rather than parroting other media reports. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the article definitely needs to be edited in current-event/go-slow mode. KOLD is reporting that she was injured in the shooting but that the Pima Sheriff will not confirm that she was shot.[3] Per Google News, the Tucson Citizen reports she was shot point blank in the head; their website is down, so the story can't be checked for updates.[4] —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This really should be semi protected..... --Found5dollar (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I put in request for pending changes at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this is a case for semi-protection. I was about to boldly semi-protect it myself, but at least two other admins had the same idea. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'll be tempted to up to to full protection if some confirmed editors continue on in the way they have been. It may be necessary to enforce the go slow approach which I thoroughly agree with. --Slp1 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw this as confirmed by Reuters (though wasn't a print / web medium so not reference-able. Happy to now await second source; sad news in any event. -AlisonW (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I for one definitely endorse the slow, sourced approach here. We aren't a news service, we're a repository of confirmed facts, and waiting for confirmation is a much higher priority than split-second status updates. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this article and the 11:01 PT (?19:01 UTC?) National Public Radio newscast, Giffords died. That is what I based my edit on, and I think that there is now enough sourced material to add that she died in the article 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like electoral history section got wiped out in the furious edit storm. Gripdamage (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just ran a diff to the 5 Jan version, and I don't see anything missing, unless there's an unclosed ref tag or something eating the seciton. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an "Electoral history" section header at one point, but no actual content that I can find. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, the issue is that when the "electoral history" material was added, the editor who added it mangled the formatting and mixed the "Electoral history" and "References" material together [5]. The material is in the article now, it just need to be sorted out from the references, if someone with the bits would like to do that. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, NPR, the one source the whole section is based on, just posed that "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six others died after a gunman opened fire at a public event on Saturday, the Pima County, Ariz., sheriff's office confirms." [6] --Found5dollar (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only NPR says she was killed. Politico.com and CNN.com do not say she is dead and CNN TV says it is unclear. --Metallurgist (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuters is echoing NPR. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN TV confirms it too now.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuters has just reversed itself and said she is alive and in surgery. --AlisonW (talk) 19

36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Current event

According to the article, she is a "current event".

Can we agree people are never "current events "? Greswik (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Changed to {{Current person}}. Adambro (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

She was just shot. That must count for something. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/01/breaking_arizon.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.227.175 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have upped this to full protection for six hours. There are too many BLP violating edits from confirmed users, and managing this is too difficult. There are plenty of admins watching this who can edit the page when concrete, non-news reporting becomes available. Feel free to make suggestions here. We can go slow and assess the sources more calmly this way. --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources are now confirming that she's been killed. You need to unprotect the page or update it with relevant information.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What are the other sources? Do they all quote NPR? All the ones I've seen say "according to NPR". --Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR should be enough. Not to mention the fact that they cite a statement made by the Pima County Sheriff.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{recent death|Last name, First name}} Time tragically The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This would suggest she is dead; and that the {{died}} template should be added. I request that my last edit be restored, with the link as a source Purplebackpack89 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you add the date of death to the infobox? It looks strange mentioning it in the intro, but not in the infobox

Also, as she is deceased, the term needs to be shown as ended in the Member of the House part. Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A number of sources are saying she's in the hospital with unknown status, so marking her as dead should probably wait a bit. Also, shouldn't there be a template saying that the article is locked? Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please

I see NPR reports she has died, and that's a good source, but at least one more independent reliable source would be better. Please link them here. Jonathunder (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times, says medical condition unclear: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN confirms NPR's report that Rep. Giffords has been killed.--Janus657 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the CNN report independent? Can you provide a link, please? Jonathunder (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Link Purplebackpack89 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

At this time it says, "CNN could not confirm conditions for Giffords or any of the others wounded..." Jonathunder (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

[7] Reuters confirms that she is dead, though CNN Live TV still says that they have unconfirmed reports and are waiting for the news coverage

Edit request from Willtim, 8 January 2011

{{edit protected}} Reports of Gabrielle Giffords death have not yet been confirmed. It is only sure that she was shot in the head at close proximity during a "Congress on Your Corner" early morning event. At least 12 other people were injured in the attack.

Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-dead.html

 Not done This is not evidence of the contrary, and there are other news organizations (NPR, CNN, see below) confirming the death at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is She Dead?

NPR no longer confirming she is dead [8] KOLD (on air) reporting she is in surgery

According to Huffington Post and NPR, Giffords was shot around 1:19 PM ET.

Now, Huffington Post says that it is confirmed that she is dead. So is she really dead?

Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• And here's confirmation via the Arizona Daily-Star here. May God have mercy on her soul. (PS: please unprotect or at least switch to semi-protect so that I can add the relevant new categories such as Assassinated American politicians) Tom Danson (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Confirmation from CNN and NPR [9], [10]

• Major news outlets are confirming that she has died. CNN, Fox, NPR, etc. Thekithless (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is also reporting her death independently. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345386/Gabrielle-Giffords-dies-shot-head-public-event.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-mailonline --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching MSNBC now. They've reported she's dead but the sheriff says she's still alive, but critical. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC retracted the statement. Houstonbuildings (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So did NY Times NY Times Houstonbuildings (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Electoral history

Someone needs to fix the electoral history box. Just add a } or a |} to the bottom. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any content for that section. Could you post it here, please? Jonathunder (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the table. Can you be more clear? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR is now retracting her death saying there are conflicting reports. -anon

BBC Now reporting her death http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774 - PJ

Assassinated?

I feel we should refer to her as not Shot Dead, but rather Assassinated.--Subman758 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's going to be a tough sell, especially with the event less than two hours old. We need to wait on that until the District Attorney announces what specific charges will be lodged against the shooter. Doing anything before then is speculative at best. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not certain if it was an assassination or not, the poster with the targets was a call to vote republican, not to literally shoot them. Bad PR, yes. CONFIRMED call to assassinate them? No, and hopefully that's not the case or we'll see 19 other dead senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First, they are Representatives not Senators, second, the District Attorney has nothing to do with whether or not it is an assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.10.169 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did I say anything about a district attorney...? Also yeah, my mistake, but regardless, we can't say it was an assassination until all the facts are in 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Words near the bottom of article

The words "she was shot in the Head" appears near the bottom of the article, needs to be fixed. Greswik (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And her being dead. Sheriff on MSNBC says she's still alive and MSNBC is retracting their claim that she is dead. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that as well, but I can't figure out where it's coming from. It's not in the article itself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done It was in {{USCongRep-end}} Adambro (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR cites several reports of her death at [11]. -- 92.225.77.206 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Would somebody update the infobox section concerning her being a US representative? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What update is needed? Please be specific. Jonathunder (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And the "birth date and age" template should be changed to "birth date" Bcperson89 (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He probably means that it needs to be changed to a box for FORMER political figures, rather than current ones. 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

electoral history

{{editprotected}}

The electoral history section is messed up, it is appearing after the references, with its own section appearing blank. I think this is the result of an unclosed table or unclosed ref 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

someone fixed it. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR now says "conflicting reports" about giffords death

• [12]--j⚛e decker^talk 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

azstarnews.com "critically wounded"

• [ http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_88b4b436-1b53-11e0-8354-001cc4c002e0.html]

January 11th?

Wasn't it January 8th? S51438 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

not dead in surgery

getting reports - not dead in surgery Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC has hospital spokesperson saying she is in surgery, not dead. --Crunch (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Caution re alive/dead

BBC now saying Reuters quoting hospital spokewoman saying she's alive. Other news orgs are also suggesting she might actually still be alive. Adambro (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN as well is now retracting their earlier statement of her death, simply saying reports are "conflicting." --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooting article

Is there an article on this mass shooting? Considering that 6 people have died, and a dozen were shot, it appears to be on the face of it notable enough for its own article, even without Giffords being shot. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

About the death

I think the date of death until more sources can confirm that she died. Right now they are having unconfirmed reports of death and there are sources that say that she is still alive. I recommend we wait and see the outcome --Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)