Talk:Barbara Boxer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

wasn't Boxer's first political position on her local school board?

I went ahead and removed the vandalism from 68.190.235.25 and moved a period around. Yay for my first Wiki editing experience. :D

When is Barbara Boxer up for election

Since she was re-elected in 2004, her current term lasts through the 2010 election (six years)
fsufezzik 22:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This article reads like a campaign brochure

192.147.67.12 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It still reads like a campaign brochure. There isn't any reason, for example, to state that the Invest in the USA bill "would create 600,000 new jobs." That's for an article on the bill. This is an article about Boxer. I note also there's nothing addressing the kerfuffle involving Ms. Rice. ... aa:talk 10:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


This is a terrible article. It certainly reads like a campaign brochure. Where's the criticism? As a resident of California, I know that quite a few other people don't like her. A criticism section should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.119.8 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What specific facts do you feel are currently left out but should be included in this article? Please feel free to suggest changes. As for the second part, most politicians do not have a criticism section and in fact seperate criticism sections are frowned upon by wiki good article standards (they represent poor encyclopedic style and, in practice, tend to just turn into troll bait for opponents to post whatever opinion piece they read on a blog that day). It is general only found in articles about highly controversial figures, where the controversy itself is an integral part of their notability. Even then, it can be problematic. It is better to weave the criticism into the article itself (in the context of specific issues, being careful to maintain NPOV) as is done here. Take a look at several other articles about current Senators, both Democratic and Republican, and you'll see what I mean. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Born Barbara Levy?

Is Boxer her husband's surname?

Yes, her husband is Stewart Boxer.

Has it been substantiated that Alberto Gonzales condoned torture?

In written instructions, he authorized - supported - it. Kevin Baastalk 21:42, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Boxer is described as a "vocal advocate for ... the rights of the minority in the Senate", yet in 1994 she voted for a cloture motion aimed at ending the right of the Senate minority (in this case a Republican minority) to filibuster. Shouldn't this necessitate at least a tweaking of the "vocal advocate" label vis-a-vis "rights of the minority in the Senate"? Here is the cloture motion: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:S10MR4-868: Clark Smith, Erfurt, Germany, 12:10, 2005 April 29

Yes, she has acknowledged that and feels now that this decision was a mistake. She has publicly stated that her opinion has changed and that she regrets her prior vote, giving what she has learned. I would hope to see the same kind of wisdom from every member of the U.S. government: the ability to learn. Without it, there is only a dead end. Kevin Baastalk: new 06:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


I don't know how to add my own comment for the Barbara Boxer article, so I'll piggy-back on this note. The Boxer re-election campaign could not have written a more pandering, glowing profile! Is there really any effort by the Wiki community to attempt an unbiased presentation, or is this just a wink-nudge concept that is only followed when it's pointed out (if then)?

It would just be labeled "vandalism" if I changed a single word. It just needs a complete re-write, unless the intention of Wikipedia is present the Democratic party line. If so, then no changes are necessary at all.

[edit] Supported capital punishment?

The article says that Boxer supported capital punishment. But the good people at OnTheIssues.org say otherwise. Their records of Boxer's position:

  • Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing
  • Require DNA testing for all federal executions
  • NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals
  • NO on limiting death penalty appeals

Until someone ponies up some proof of a pro-death penalty stance, I'm removing the information.

Granted. My stance on the dath penalty is somewhat ambiguous - but my stance on Barbara reflects that of the state of California. So to the point: supporting death penalty appeals is not neccessarily opposing the death penalty. It's opposing taking away the right to due process in regards one's life; the right of habeaus corpus (literally: you have the body), which is stated clearly in the constitution. So logically/legally speaking, neither she nor any member of congress, nor any judge or executive officer, has the authority to vote against appeals on the death penalty; if they would, they would not be doing so "under the authority of the united states", in other words they would not be acting in the capacity of a congressperson. But I digress - i have no objection to the removal of said content, it lacking substantiation as pointed out. Kevin Baastalk: new 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

A reader would think that Boxer is the least contrverisal Senator in Washington, which is not entirely accurate. Can we include some of the notable criticisms of Boxer? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there are absolutely no criticisms on this page. I think that the fact that she claimed to oppose all foreign ownership of ports when in fact 75% of her state's ports are foreign owned is an example of her ignorance on some issues. I placed that fact in the article and it was promptly deleted, but no one has said it was false.

The statement above is entirely unfair and biased. The author of the statement claims that Boxer is ignorant on some issues because she's against foreign-owned ports and yet some of CA's ports are foreign-owned. Counter to that biased claim of 'ignorance', I would say that it shows that she is obviously trying to change the foreign-ownership of CA's ports and the nation's ports, following her own stated beliefs. As most of us on wikipedia know, a Senator is not the dictator of their individual state and does not have ultimate authority to configure their state however they would like.

I think we should include notable criticisms, which means ones that can be sourced rather than ones proposed (for the first time) on this page. Anyone have any sourceable criticisms of Ms. Boxer?

[edit] POV

Having earned a reputation as an unabashed liberal, Boxer is generally regarded as a more divisive figure than California's other Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein.

This is terribly POV. It could possibly be changed to read: "Boxer has earned a reputation as an unabashed liberal, quite unlike her more moderate fellow California Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein." --Revolución (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


POV surprises you? The entire profile was written by the Barbara Boxer political campaign!206.195.19.42 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Partisan and divisive are different things. It is not true that she is the most divisive figure.


where does it say "most divisive"? 'more' and 'most' are not synonyms. Anastrophe 07:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fluff, bloat

This article is filled with fluff unrelated to her status as a US senator. it's also bloated. frankly, it reads like a campaign brochure. i've done my best to remove redundant wording and simplify overlong descriptive texts, but it's still much longer than most entries for - by and large - a senator lacking significant controversy (see kerry, kennedy, santorum, byrd, etc). Anastrophe 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


ah. i see now that in fact most of this article really is directly from her own official website - http://boxer.senate.gov. while i'm sure there's no copyright involved in reproducing materials written at taxpayer expense, i seriously question the propriety of doing so. her official site is also her partisan site - you will not find a single word critical of her there. most of this article is strongly biased in her favor - POV. i think a POV tag should probably be applied, but better would be to revert the page to the one immediately before the wholesale inclusion of all this fluff, back in october. Anastrophe 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

user baas, please explain your near wholesale reversion of my edits. most of what you have restored is highly POV, and as such not acceptable in an encyclopedia article. Anastrophe 18:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

further review of user kevin baas's reversions shows almost no care for keeping the article NPOV. most of the edits i performed removed weasel wording that is unsourceable, except as being direct lifts from boxer's own senate website, which is essentially a campaign brochure - highly partisan, not NPOV. as well, the majority of my edits were to remove redundant wording that adds nothing to the article; wording that does not conform to good editorial practice; and wording that does not conform to other entries for political figures (it is unnecessary to repeat throughout the article "barbara" as her first name, nor "senator" for all those entries that are implicitly referring to her current tenure as a senator). reverting wholesale is not good practice. please discuss your justifications for the reversion of these changes, specifically, before doing so again.Anastrophe 19:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

also, please review entries for other political figures. you will see that this article - even after my edits to trim the laudatory wording - is still a virtual bouquet of roses to this senator, rather than an NPOV encyclopedia entry. Anastrophe 19:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I found that your intentions were good, but you were a bit overzealous. Some wording that you may have considered laudatory was just informative. For instance, comprehensive: "Comprehensive test ban treaty" - comprehensive can be an accurate, neutral descriptor, and it is interesting information. The Patriot Act is comprehensive - and although I think the Patriot Act is over-reching just like the Alien-Sedition Acts, and that this is just a repeat of a mistake we make every time there's a war like this, that we haven't learned from, I would nto object to calling it comprehensive, though I would object to the removal of that adjective. In any case, there was a lot of useful information trimmed, and I tried to put it back in, while preserving your elimination of rhetoric.
Regarding "Barbara" - I was preserving your trimming for the first half, but when i got to a certain point, a did a wholesale reversion of the remainder. I imagine you did a compromise semi-revert, I'll take a look at it and we can work together on getting something not-so-campaignish that still preserves usefull information. Kevin baas 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
i restored almost all of my previous edits. rather than reverting virtually the whole of them, please edit the specifically problematic portions, as you noted above. i believe, with regard to 'comprehensive', it's use is valid for such things as the 'comprehensive test ban treaty', simply because that's the formal name of the treaty. Anastrophe 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I would also say that, among other things, the Patriot Act was comprehensive. Kevin baas 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is way too long and the information is way too biased. I like the woman, being one of her constituents and having voted for her, but the article presents no other POV. I'm sure she's not THAT perfect! We need to trim this article down considerably.Kiwidude 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
i'm making another run at trimming this. there are a great many references to her having voted for xyz bill, offering amendments, or introducing bills in the past. these activities are the daily business of congress, and by no means notable for an encyclopedia. legislation introduced, and passed, is notable. significant amendments that are passed along with legislation are notable. Anastrophe 20:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for paragraph?

Is there a citation for this? It's very interesting, and should definely be cited if there is one and removed if not.

However, Boxer also was deeply involved in the House bank scandal in which congressmen, herself included, wrote bad checks in large amounts, an issue that the Sacramento Bee covered in a Mar. 1, 1992 article quoting Boxer as admitting she didn't pay enough attention to her House bank account. More specifically, that meant 143 bad checks totaling $41,417 over a three-year period that she had written on the House bank.

Kevin Baastalk 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] would someone be so kind as to modify 3.2

Section 3.2, although undoubtedly central to the encyclopedic integrity of the article, thirteen subsections seems a bit too much. A person more familiar with the Senator/policies, needs to come through and condense it, chronologicaly..something. Thanks.Nmpenguin 23:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Child Left Behind

The following statement was removed, and should be reinstated if and when a source can be cited: This claim, however, has been proven false and the vast majority of the federal funding has been mismanaged at the State levels across the country. (regarding the Senator's claim that No Child Left Behind was underfunded)71.104.120.180 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recess appointment is constitutional

Someone has claimed that saying that recess appointment is constitutional is POV. No. The Wikipedia article on recess appointment (which is linked to in the section) says that it's explicitly in the Constitution. It's not debateable; under the current Constitution, recess appointment is explicitly constitutional, look in the recess appointment article to see where. So, I'm changing it back. This is not a POV statement. It is a purposely avoided fact. PLease discuss here if you want me to stop reverting, comments encouraged, thanks. 68.59.61.191 15:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Ya, duh it's constiutional. Who's disputing that? It's begging the question. Just link recess appointment to recess appointment in the article and anyone who doesn't have a middle school education (or comes from a bad school) can find out that it's unconstitutional. It's not purposely avoided, it's just not sufficiently interesting and important, which makes it POV. It's POV because it suggests that some argue that it's not constitutional, which is building a straw man. Kevin Baastalk 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Um... no, no straw man, just mentioning that it's constitutional to avoid wrong impressions. You're assuming I'm using this article to argue and persuade, when I'm just using it to inform. You can't just say it's "straw man" because I said something that someone could possibly disagree with. I mean, if I had said "some people said it was wrong" or whatever, then maybe, but I didn't. By that logic, the whole article assumes that there are people alleging that Barbara Boxer is not a senator, has never done anything important, and doesn't even exist; the article suggests that some argue that Barbara Boxer is a figment of media imagination, and is building a straw man to refute this, saying she does indeed exist. You see what I mean? You're taking a three word phrase and seeing paragraphs of information that just aren't there. And the whole begigng the question accusation falls right in there; what am I assuming is correct here? That it's constitutional? I know that's not it, you said yourself it's not an assumption, it's the truth. So what am I assuming? What "question" am I begging (I don't think that's the right way to say it, but you get hwat I mean)?
I think you're seeing more to these three words than there really is. All I'm doing is mentioning that it's COnstitutional in order to avoid false impressions. I'm a pretty bright guy, but when I first read it it looked like Bush had done something wrong, until I read the recess appointment article, so it's not just pre-middle school kids that could be duped, especially with the usage of the word "bypassed" in the same sentence, a word with bad connotation. My words add nothing but clarity, and there are no agenda-motivated assumptions behind them. I think you're assuming that I'm assuming a lot more than I'm really assuming. At least, that's what I assume you're assuming. HAHAHAHA 68.59.61.191 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments are just more logical fallacies. firstly, the point is that nobody is allegeding that it's unconstitutional. The chance that someone would get the wrong impression is negligible, and the article does not state or imply that it is unconstitutional, you're trying to fix something that ain't broke. but the impression that what you want to add gives people is that some people do have the wrong impression, which is not true or at best, original research. unless you can provide some sort of references to verify that ppl think or have said that it's unconstituional, it's a straw man fallacy. This article is not a straw man fallacy because there are people who don't know this stuff about barbara boxer, that's what an encyclopedia is for. on the content must meet the criteria of interesting and important, by common sense AND according to policy. That it's constitutional is obvious, and in general actions are assumed to be legal unless otherwise contested, because if there was any dispute it certainly would be interesting and important and be in the article. but whoa and behold, there isn't any dispute on this point in the article. so unless you can find a significant dispute and put it in the article per policy, then you're stating something that the reader is expected to assume, and therefore being redundant, making them think: "why is this mentioned?" "oh, they must be trying to clear up a common misconception." Thus, it implies that there's a common misconception. But the problem is there isn't. Kevin Baastalk 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you can't just "POWERWORD: LOGICAL FALLACY" me and expect me to just curl up and obey. You're entire objection relies on the assumption that I'm using this article to argue and persuade. People would only assume that it's a dispute just because it's mentioned if they were on guard for phrases that are aimed to persuade. If this were some kind of persuasive web page, it would be an issue, but it's just an informative encyclopedia, mentioning an uncommon occurence, recess appointment. What percentage of people do you think know right off the bat that recess appointment even exists, much less is an specific constitutional right of the president?
This isn't some jab that "makes it clear" that it's not unconstitutional, as I've already stated (and was ignored; perhaps you're thinking I'm not being honest?); it's just the inclusion of a fact, nothing more. It's no different than saying Boxer's a Democrat. Is that disputed? Are people getting the wrong impression by reading the article that her political orientation is in dispute? Or the fact that she's form California, do people also think that's in dispute? Have people been confused and befuddled by these statemtents? Not likely. Including something doesn't automatically imply that it's in dispute, especially something explicit and unarguable, such as Barbara Boxer's political preference, her state of origin, or the constitutionality of recess appointment. The reason I included, as I'll say again, is to mention that it's in the Constitution, because it's not as well-known as, say, veto power. I think it's overestimating the average reader (who is not, I'm guessing, a political figure article editor) to "expect them to assume" that it's in the Constitution. You say I need a source saying people could get the wrong impression? I could just as easily ask you for one saying they won't be, so that really doesn't cut it. The inclusion of a simple modifier phrase like this is not a POV statement, and couldn't be interpreted to imply a dispute by anyone who is not specifically looking to dispose of any words that make the President's actions seem valid or legal. This is a simple inclusion of a fact aimed at giving a very brief description of where the authority for a recess appointment originates, something that is not likely to be common knowledge, since recess appointments for Supreme Court justices are rare, and generally not brought into the media spotlight.
Look, bottom line is there's plenty of stuff in this article that lots of people know: her state, her party, her stances on several issues, etc.; that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included anyway. Besides, this isn't even something that widely known, so there should be no problem with including it. Maybe you should do a little more assuming of good faith before you start accusing me of including a simple modifier as part of an agenda to start a mass rumor about a question of the constitutionality of Bush's recess appointment. By the way, any outside opinions would be most welcome here. 68.59.61.191 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Her state, party and stances on issues are important pieces of information in an article about her, not throwaway factoids like what you are edit warring to retain in this article. There are innumerable unimportant descriptors we could add to facts everywhere. An encyclopedia article wouldn't bother itself saying say "Barbara Boxer, whose hair is wavy," even though it's true. We also don't say "... the senator from California, which has many mountain ranges," even though it's true. Similarly there's no need for this. Anybody curious about recess appointments' basis in law can click on the article on recess appointments. · Katefan0 (scribble) 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, by that logic, why is this snippet even in there in the first place? It's a recess appointment, linked to Bush, linked to the judge, linked to Barbara Boxer. I may not like it, but if it's too obscure to describe, it's to obscure to even include. After all, just as you wouldn't say "Barbara BOxer has wavy hair", you wouldn't say "Barbara BOxer has hair" with no adjective. If it's not even important to label as constitutional, it shouldn't stand there, disallowed from being modified with a simple phrase, forcing people to make their own conclusions. If it can't be clarified, it shouldn't be included. 68.59.61.191 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Exactly WHAT is POV about this? "Critics of Boxer's economic policies say that they would actually do more harm than good to the economy, citing the works of economists such as Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman which argue that the less the government interferes in the economy, the more prosperous and developed the economy becomes." I'm afraid to inform the writers of this article that just because they disagree with something doesn't mean that it is POV.

In addition, I am curious as to why someone deleted this comment.

Add that to the criticism section but it must be clear that above is only a view of a few economists. This should not be presented as a truth. There are many completely different views on this topic by many scientists. - Darwinek 11:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the above is only the view of a "few" economists. In addition, I am not writing it as if it were a "truth." I wrote it in a NPOV manner, stating that there are economists (particularly very prominent and influential ones) that would say her policies would harm, rather than benefit, the economy. "Critics of Boxer's economic policies say..."

[edit] Article assessed as "B"

Very good article, but needs a little cleanup in terms of refrences. Some come out as references, some come out as hyperlinks within the text. Consider submitting this for a Wikibiography peer review, and nomination for GA. That way you'll get a lot more impartial feedback. Jeffpw 11:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalenced article

I added the unbalanced tag because

  1. This article is not comprehensive - it skirts politically active issues such as drug control, which I know are important to this politician.
  2. This article is not NPOV. It only has positive aspects of this politician - it reads like a campaign flyer.

Please do not remove the tag until serious work has been completed on this article -- readers should have fair warning.

St.isaac 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxer/Rice

At least two editors added paragraphs to different locations regarding Boxer's statements in a recent hearing. I've moved them together, under "Foreign Policy", but they need to be merged. -Will Beback · † · 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and Keith Olbermann comments on the right making it an issue when the same people were not outraged when "Laura Bush said Secretary Rice would never be elected president because she was not married" should be included. ("Olbermann bestows "Worst Person" honors on Kristol, Limbaugh", Media Matters for America, Jan 16, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-01-16. ) PatriotBible 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Surprise, surprise, surprise. Olbermann comments on Limbaugh. Let's see. Olbermann comments on Limbaugh. Do you think Olbermann is attempting to get viewers by criticizing more successful people such as Limbaugh and O'Reily? Of course, but the question is: Should the article have the comments of Olbermann criticizing Limbaugh in it?? I don't think so. It seems so far a field.--Getaway 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed the following text from section "Bills and Policy Positions"

Islamophobia In late 2006, Senator Boxer angered the interfaith and civil rights communities in California after rescinding an award to a local Muslim activist Basim Elkarra due to allegations from from an extremist right-wing and pro-Israel blogger.[1] If Not Now, When? [1]

This incident has nothing to do with her bills, voting records, policies etc. Unlike its heading "Islamophobia," the section is only about how she rescinded an award to a Muslim not about her stances on the Muslim community. I would also like to say that it seemed POV. Its articles are also from Muslim POV, and one of them is an editorial. mirageinred 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this article comes from a more NPOV. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384987/site/newsweek/ Whether her action was justified or not, this section doesn't fit very well into "bills and policy positions." mirageinred 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I noticed that the article is full of sources not correctly cited as references. Is there anyone willing to do the huge work or is there a bot which can fix it? --Checco 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion Debate Link

Came here looking for a quick link to a debate I recall between Boxer and some conservative guy on the topic of where the point is between a baby outside the womb and a fetus inside the womb ("if the baby's arm is still inside? if the baby's head is still inside?"). A quick skim doesn't bring it up, and this talk page doesn't mention it, but does indicate that there's practically nothing negative about Boxer on the whole page. Given that my entire experience with the woman is reading that particular debate transcript, and that it put a rather negative light on her, I wonder if it used to be linked to from this page but the link got removed by someone who didn't want people thinking a conservative could calmly talk her into apoplexy a la 12 Angry Men (that's my general memory of what I read, but it's been a while). Anyway... could someone put up the link - perhaps under the Abortion section, or under a criticisms link section? Wikipedia needs to be balanced, and not act as mere advertising. Thanks! Kilyle (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First post/edit ever on Wikipedia...but don't the terms "Abortion Rights" and "Gun Control" inherently give away a POV? There are persons who rather use the terms "Abortion Control" and "Gun Rights", so this is actually larger than just a page about Barbara Boxer. This is something that might be better addressed at the whole Wikipedia level. Perhaps it already is and just this page violates that spirit of neutrality. It's not an aspect of Wikipedia I've investigated until now... BillDMoose (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)