Talk:Kelli Ward

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

Reverted extensive deletion of material from article[edit]

I did not agree with the basis of the 548 character deletion by this user. The material removed seems legitimate, well sourced, and pertinent to the subject of the article. Apparently, it is the only edit that the anonymous user has ever made. The user's Internet Protocol address indicates that it was made from Glendale, AZ. The user has no entries on his or her TALK page. Before any further deletions are made, they should be discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus should be collectively achieved. Activist (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not agree with the basis of the deletion by this user. The material removed seems legitimate, well sourced, and pertinent to the subject of the article. Before any further deletions are made, they should be discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus should be collectively achieved. Activist (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this is a recurring problem only now with Calibrador (talk). This senator has made many comments that support noted racists Cliven Bundy & Donald Sterling. Even if she is not a racist herself, as an elected official, its certainly notable to see where she stands on the issue if it isn't condoning the comments. Therefore its very much pertinent and relevant. Thank you 100.14.57.197 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sterling comments are not relevant other than a source existing. Not everything where a source is available is required to be included in the article. Calibrador (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally responding here, rather than simply reverting me without saying anything. I reverted your previous revert of me, because your edit explanation stated "Undid revision 693461170 by 100.14.57.197 (talk) do not remove updated information" - which is false explanation. I did not remove any information, whereas you keep removing info. I'm not saying you're wrong for removing information (although in this case you are) but you are wrong for removing it and telling me to stop removing information. Moving on, if you search for Dr. Ward on google, this is the first news article that comes up. Unfortunately, that article is not an exception - most articles about her refer to her in that same negative light. We would be doing great disservice to the readers of this site to not provide them with the general public perception of her. The information on her support of Cliven Bundy and remarks on Donald Sterling, while not a tacit indication that she herself is a racist, are highly controversial and deserve inclusion. In the future, do not remove information under false edit summaries. Its also clear you remove the information then try to hide it under six or seven additional edits - not a good practice here. Also there's a rule about reverting something three times, so one more revert puts you close to a block. Please discuss before changing. Thanks
There's no reason to break up the section into three different headlines, gives undue weight. Calibrador (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much needed. Statements that allude to racism and support of a widely debunked conspiracy should be differentiated. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to be made, there is a user who, presumably is related to the candidate through here senate campaign. Unfortunately, they have the motivation therefore to remove pertinent information from the site that is related to the politician. They repeatedly delete new additions and revert the article to an older, out of date version. Presumably they would see the new information as negative, which truthfully it is in some regard, but is also true. Personally I reinstate the new, updated edits, despite this. If they would wish to have a discussion on the topic, they should or they should edit the current information to replace false or misleading statements rather then removing the topic as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsudeck (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected 1 week. @RogerCG1 and Tsudeck: Work out your dispute here instead of edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 17:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerCG1: If there is anything that is wrong or improperly sourced I will not repost it. However, to the best of my understanding and through my research I have found it to all be valid and pertinent information surrounding the politician. If you think that it should not be included solely because it paints Kelli Ward in a bad light I'd be happy to cooperate with you on fixing/ editing the information. Or you are welcome to post information that argues the counterside of the issue. Just because the politician does not like something or it is negative toward her does not mean it shouldn't be information that is included. My primary motivation is that since she is becoming a relatively significant candidate in the Arizona Republican primary election, any possible voter who would wish to learn more about her and does so through Wikipedia is entitled to and should receive all pertinent information that may allow them to make an informed vote. Tsudeck (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerCG1:: Just wanted to ping you again. Wanted to talk to you about this. Please get back to me.Tsudeck (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerCG1:: Still awaiting your reply. Tsudeck (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerCG1:: Hello? Last try. Tsudeck (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did not hear from @RogerCG1: I went ahead and published information that is similar to before. In addition I had added information which has happened in the past week since the restriction was placed on the page.Tsudeck (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section[edit]

The ~15kb swathe of "controversies" that has now been re-added to the article six times by one registered editor and two IPs, is not appropriate for a WP:BLP for the following reasons:

  • extremely weak/unreliable sourcing of controversial material, for example youtube (multiple times), talkingpointsmemo.com (multiple times), a meluskey.nationbuilder.com "PRESS RELEASE", etc.
  • many of the recognisably reliable sources used do not mention Ward at all (leading to WP:SYNTH, see below)
  • use of primary sources, e.g. legiscan.com and azleg.gov, in support of WP:NPOV WP:OR in Wikipedia's voice
  • WP:UNDUE in focusing the entire article (which is otherwise very short) almost solely on negative interpretations (not supported by independent reliable sources) of things the person has done
  • WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH in providing long screeds about some person of apparently dubious character, accompanied by a much shorter mention of some involvement that the subject of the article (Ward) had with that person - without an independent reliable source linking the two or commenting on this as significant in Ward's life or political career
  • WP:SYNTH in instances like using an article that mentions Ward's medical career (but not her political career or politics) as a source for a section that links the two negatively

I appreciate the efforts of the other editor(s) to add sources, but the one single source they've added so far is not enough to rescue this material.

I am going to remove the material again, and according to WP:BLP it should not be re-added until there is consensus here to do so. We can of course discuss the material here, point by point if necessary, to reach such consensus. MPS1992 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The election section states that she ran for office in Arizona's fifth congressional district. That is not accurate. I live in that district, and that's not where she ran for office. Even the link to the election results doesn't show her name at all. Andy Biggs is the represnetative for that district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.116.152 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnonymousUser Can we get some verification / source for the doctoral degree? It seems quite prominent on the page.

RogerCG1 Of what you have seen me add, what has been in your analysis is false or poorly sourced? That of course I'll either not add or improve. As for any other information, you are welcome to add what you think is relevant and pertinent to a candidate for public office. All which I have added I believe to be relevant, factual and well sourced.Tsudeck (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RogerCG1 You said you were interested in discussing this. Just thought I'd ping you again.Tsudeck (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RogerCG1 has not edited in more than a week. It is also possible that he or she has "pings" turned off. May I ask why you are eager to discuss the disputed article content with him or her specifically? MPS1992 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992 We have had a "editing war" lately. I posted new content about the politician in regards to the upcoming election for Arizona Senate. However, while truthful and relevant to the biography of the individual, it can reflect negatively on her. I believe that he is from the Kelli Ward campaign which is why he continually deletes my updates. It of course is annoying. So in order to prevent it from continuing I wanted to talk with him about what specifically he objects to and why. In essence so we can edit and improve the article together. I don't know whether he objects the the content solely because it is negative or because it is incorrect in some way I am unaware. You can see the earlier history of the issue further up the talk page as well.. He attempted to talk to me once on my personal talk page but I tried to redirect him here instead. Tsudeck (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight placed on controversies that are mostly trivial and not a focus of any sort of discussion in the campaign, and are nearly irrelevant, only serve as an attack based on bias towards the article subject. There is a criteria for inclusion, and listing every little thing and giving undue weight to supposed controversy does not present the article subject from a neutral point of view. Calibrador (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at her from an unbiased viewpoint and understand that she is extremely controversial. Run a simple Google search on her and you will see most of these as the first or second result that comes up. 100.14.115.135 (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paid ads by political opponents don't count as reliable sources. Calibrador (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deliberate attempt to sanitize this article of any negativity must stop. If you want to change wording or integrate some of the controversies into the career section go for it, but stop removing sourced information that is very important to the subject. 100.14.99.194 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer donates bigly[edit]

A section on? Wikipietime (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on that some more. The Mercers also funded Breitbart and Trump's campaign. Lots of sources online that have documented this without any effort from the Mercers to deny it.StyxinConn47 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Google search:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/09/trump-jeff-flake-robert-mercer-kelli-ward-241454
Top Trump donor ponies up to take out Flake
Robert Mercer is donating $300,000 to a super PAC backing Kelli Ward, who is running against the GOP senator in a primary next year.
By ALEX ISENSTADT
Politico
08/09/2017

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/mccain-robert-mercer-kelli-ward-donor-227365
McCain rips major Trump donor, warns of future campaign finance scandals
By BURGESS EVERETT
08/24/2016

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — A billionaire supporting Sen. John McCain’s underdog primary opponent may be doing so as payback, McCain said Wednesday.

Robert Mercer, co-CEO of hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, gave $200,000 to a super PAC supporting Kelli Ward, McCain’s conservative challenger in next week's GOP primary. The money helped fuel a $600,000 ad campaign that alleges McCain “betrayed us on amnesty” and boosts Ward.

--Nbauman (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the name "Chemtrail Kelli?"[edit]

Since this has shown up in the major newspapers, I thought I'd ask: why the name?, and, someone please provide the background on that. If it's in the news, the truth needs to be told. Tanks! [SIC] StyxinConn47 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The moniker was created by John McCain during her last attempt to become a senator. The GOP Establishment now believes it can use it again to keep her from winning again. It all stems from a 2014 town hall event she held on the topic. Her interview with whackjob Alex Jones certainly doesn't help. 97.78.132.34 (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something to do with this: Mary Jo Pitzl (2014-06-14). "State lawmaker listens to concerns about 'chemtrails'". AZ Central. Retrieved 2015-07-14.
Not relevant in an encyclopedic biography of a living person, since the source is clear that it was a proportion of the very small number of attendees that wanted to talk about chemtrails, and it was Kelli who merely listened politely. As made clear in the source, she did not "hold a town hall event on the topic". MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could be relevant because it came up in the campaign, she was accused of supporting the chemtrails thery, but major sources say that misrepresents her position and she was falsely accused. For example, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/25/senate-leadership-fund/no-kelli-ward-isnt-chemtrails-conspiracy-theorist/ --Nbauman (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Which independent reliable sources, if any, say that the accusations were of significance in the campaign? MPS1992 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In person, Kelli Ward is polished. ... Polished might not be what you’d expect from Ward if you first heard about her, as many outside Arizona did, in an ad from the Mitch McConnell–allied Senate Leadership Fund PAC that labeled her “Chemtrail Kelli,” a nickname spun out of an incident at a Ward town hall where she didn’t shoot down constituent concerns about the chemtrails conspiracy theory. " https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-identity-crisis-has-overtaken-arizonas-senate-race/ --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a couple sentences on the chemtrail ad to article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Steve Bannon[edit]

I have removed the Steve Bannon context from the article about Kelli. The actions of someone else are not about that person. If someone disagrees lets have a discussion and garner consensus. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your bold removal of reliably-sourced information. Who endorses a candidate is quite relevant, and there is, in fact, reliably-sourced discussion of what this endorsement means for Ward's candidacy. Removing it entirely from this article appears to be groundless. There are no BLP issues with the material as currently stands - the sources are impeccable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the idea that this is "the actions of someone else" is total nonsense — Bannon appeared with Ward in a joint event announcing his endorsement of her. There's a picture of the two standing together on the stage. I'm not sure how you think this isn't relevant to Ward's candidacy, but it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)ys[reply]
One appearance does not make this relevant to her. If we tracked every appearance made this would go on for days. The policy here is to gain consensus before reverting the article. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If she makes an appearance with someone and it receives significant RS coverage, then yes we should cover it. Note also that simply making an appearance with Bannon is not the sole extent of the RS coverage of the Bannon-Ward relationship. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Bannon's endorsement and involvement in her campaign is notable, as demonstrated by significant RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One event is notable? Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then the article would be named Steve Bannon's endorsement of Kelli Ward. Anyone claiming that Bannon's involvement is notable, should click on that red link and proceed to create the article about his involvement. MPS1992 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph in this article suffices. We don't separate standalone articles for every notable thing that befalls a person, as you are well-aware of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Bannon's involvement in her campaign has been the subject of significant RS coverage, and is therefore WP:DUE and notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how we use the concept of WP:N in Wikipedia, as you are well aware. MPS1992 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here is talking about creating an article. Are you seriously here to quibble about me using a synonym for the criteria of WP:DUE? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have literally no idea where MPS1992 gets the idea that the line for inclusion of something in an article is whether or not that thing could have a standalone article. That makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody is arguing that a political endorsement needs its own article; conversely, the argument that a once-touted endorsement by a significant political figure which received significant mainstream-source coverage is not relevant to the biography of a political candidate (because it now appears to be inconvenient for the candidate?) is meritless. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about being for against Bannon. That is the problem. This articl is about Kelli Ward. Its supposed to be nuteral. Adding Bannon is not only not about Kelli Ward but it is not relevant to her. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we are going to argue that the one Bannon endorsement should be included so should the Rand Paul, Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump endorsements. It can't be selective that makes it bias.

Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she was endorsed by them and it received RS coverage (especially if it received as extensive coverage as Bannon's), please add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See these links:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358195-rand-paul-endorses-arizonas-kelli-ward http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-becomes-first-senator-to-endorse-kelli-ward-in-arizona-senate-race/article/2639294 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/11/01/bannon-backed-kelli-ward-gets-senate-endorsement-arizona-seat-sen-rand-paul/821646001/ http://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-kelli-ward-jeff-flake-arizona-primary-2017-8 http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/347692-flake-challenger-kelli-ward-says-hannity-backs-her https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2017/08/17/president-donald-trump-endorse-kelli-ward-tweet-bashing-sen-jeff-flake/575649001/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/donald-trump-cheers-kelli-ward-primary-challenger-/ user:DrFleischman, User:Billhpike thoughts? Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did exactly what you said then you removed them. You can't be bias in a wikipedia article and only add things that hurt a candidate. Wikipedia must remain netural. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The endorsements are all still there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I applogize. I missed that. I'm sorry. My mistake. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ward and Alex Jones[edit]

An editor who has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP on this article has again removed reliably sourced content for weak reasons. This time[1] on Ward playing along with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' suggestion that McCain was a "gangster" who could kill her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an accusation to begin with. I live in England and have no connection with any of your silly season politican party nonsense in the USA. I have had no involvement in this article except for dealing with the obviously silly editing -- chemtrails and the like. When independent reliable sources talk about Alex Jones' views on chemtrails and how they relate to Ward -- or anything else serious -- then it might be relevant for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. MPS1992 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content in question has nothing to do with chemtrails. And the content was covered by independent reliable sources. You don't read what you remove? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to substantiate your removal of this content or not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ward as co-plaintiff in Gohmert v. Pence[edit]

The page says Ward's legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election have all been thrown out, but she and her husband are on the plaintiff list for Gohmert v. Pence which was filed after Christmas, challenging parts of the federal Electoral Count Act. Perhaps this should be included, unless and until such time as that case is also thrown out.[1] Dan (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "COMPLAINT FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY AND EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" (PDF). Election Law at Ohio State. 27 December 2020. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelli_Ward&oldid=1207829134"