Talk:Gabrielle Giffords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Gabrielle Giffords has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 15, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 July - November 2006


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Programmer's Guild material

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

The proposed changes- "Opponents claim that such visas displace American high tech workers, which would seem to run counter to her being a Democrat, which reportedly has traditionally supported interests of the American worker. The Programmers Guild has presented an objection to the H1B Visa from the perspective of the US high tech worker. Giffords introduced her legislation one day after testimony by Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the United States House Committee on Science and Technology. Microsoft is one of the countries' leading employers of H1B recipients. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited by the United States House Committee on Science and Technology to give testimony that would rebut Gates' testimony."
  1. The words "Opponents claim" are Weasel words and should be replaced with specifically which opponents made the claim. This needs a reliable source as well.
  2. "would seem to run counter to her being a Democrat" - to whom? needs source.
  3. The source for the programmer's guild presenting an objection is from a blog, not an independent, reliable source.

johnpseudo 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have gotten the message. Please see WP:SYN and WP:PSTS. Let's take one sentence to serve as an example: "Opponents claim that such visas displace American high tech workers, which would seem to run counter to her being a Democrat, which reportedly has traditionally supported interests of the American worker."
You sourced this with a link to the Democratic issue page ([1]). However, that page says nothing about H1B visas, or about what their opponents say about them, or about Gabrielle Giffords. A proper source for a statement on Wikipedia will say exactly what you are claiming in the statement. Arriving at the statements you are making from the sources you are giving requires original research. What you need, for this example, is a newspaper/magazine/book stating that "Opponents of the H1B visa bill claim that visas displace American high tech workers. Gabrielle Giffords' support of the bill runs counter to the Democratic Party." I doubt you will find such a source. johnpseudo 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JohnPsuedo,

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

The issue is their location. Extensive discussion of the controversy over H-1B visas belongs on that page, not in this biography. Readers looking for further information beyond the fact that they are controversial and (rightfully) opposed by labor groups, can easily click on the hyperlink to the H-1B visa page to get details on the arguments, pro and con.
To dispel any notion that there is bias here, let it be known that I am strongly opposed to expanding guest worker visas. FCYTravis (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal by Bob Heath

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

[edit] Position on H-1B Visa

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

Giffords introduced her legislation, HR6530[2], one day after the testimony[3] of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the House Committee on Science and Technology requesting an increase in the H-1B Visa cap. Microsoft is the leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients of companies headquartered in the United States, and the third leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients worldwide behind two companies headquartered in Bangalore, India[4]. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions[5].

  1. ^ PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  2. ^ Congresswoman Giffords' proposal to increase caps on the H-1B Visa. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  3. ^ Bill Gates testimony to the House Committee on Science and Technology. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  4. ^ Who Gets H-1B Visas? Check Out This List. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  5. ^ House Subcommittee on Science and Technology Hearing Schedule. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.

[edit] Comments on Proposal

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

[edit] Comments about continued stonewalling

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALL Youtube videos and blogs are self-published, by definition. If you won't read the policies, and you continue to attack me personally, I'm done dealing with you. johnpseudo 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You have never dealt with me in good faith. - Bob Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobheath (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Third opinion

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

[edit] Revision of H-1B Visa entry

Giffords has introduced legislation that will increase the cap on the controversial H-1B Visa from 65,000 per year to 130,000 per year. If that is not sufficient, according to her legislation, the cap will be increased to 180,000 per year. The H-1B Visa is controversial and subject to abuse[1]. The Programmers Guild is a professional society examining the propriety of the H-1B Visa[2].

On March 13, 2008, Giffords introduced her legislation, HR6530[3], one day after the March 12, 2008 testimony[4] of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, to the House Committee on Science and Technology of which Giffords is a member[5]. Bill Gates testimony involved requesting an increase in the H-1B Visa cap[6]. In the year 2006, Microsoft was the leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients of companies headquartered in the United States, the only US headquartered company in the top five, and the third leading employer of H-1B Visa recipients worldwide behind two companies headquartered in Bangalore, India[7][8][9]. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker was invited to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology to counter Bill Gates' assertions[10].

  1. ^ PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  2. ^ Congresswoman Giffords' proposal to increase caps on the H-1B Visa. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  3. ^ Bill Gates testimony to the House Committee on Science and Technology. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  4. ^ Who Gets H-1B Visas? Check Out This List. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  5. ^ House Subcommittee on Science and Technology Hearing Schedule. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
  • Sip1, you have made it clear that before today you were not familiar with the H-1B Visa or Gabrielle Giffords. Before today did you know JohnPseudo?
  • I have modified the article to indicate that the Programmers Guild is a professional society examining the propriety of the H1B Visa with citations to the Programmers Guild.
  • I included information with citations that Giffords is a member of the committee to which Gates testified.
  • The youtube video is evidence of abuse of the H-1B Visa, the visa for which Gabrielle Giffords introduced her legislation. I have made it clear that it is reference to abuse of the H-1B visa.
  • Citations of the House of Representatives bill that was introduced by Giffords is dated March 13, 2008. The House of Representatives reference of the Bill Gates testimony is dated March 12, 2008. Most people should be able to deduce that March 13 occurs one day after March 12.
  • The final objection of Sip1 is resolved by the citation of the Committee's schedule. No one representing the interests of the US high tech worker appears on the schedule of the House Committee of Science and Technology schedule.

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


Bob, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. This is not a place where you can publish your opinions/thoughts/conclusions about Giffords however well justified they may be. We report what is verifiable from other reliable sources. You need to produce a newspaper, magazine or a book making the exact claims you make. You cannot attempt to prove the point yourself, no matter how much 'proof' of that point you think you may have. It does not matter how many citations from House committees or other sources you provide, if the "point" has not been published elsewhere it cannot go into Wikipedia. You need to read and inwardly digest these policy articles No original research (particularly the section on Synthesis) and verifiability. It also does not matter how much you insist, but youtube (and wikipedia now) are not reliable sources for this or any article.
Bob, Wikipedia works by policy, guidelines and consensus. There are four editors, John Pseudo, Athaenara, FCYTravis,[2] and me who disagree with your proposed edits. All four of us are longstanding editors here and two are administrators. Your most recent proposed edit still does not satisfy WP's policies and cannot be included in the article. I will also add that your accusations against John Pseudo and now me are entirely inappropriate, and you should know that sanctions (e.g. WP:BLOCK) are sometimes applied if editors continue to disrupt WP after warnings are given. I beg you to stop and rethink your approach. This essay WP:TEND may help explain things more. --Slp1 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sip1, I resent your insults and your dishonesty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] Citation for H-1B depression of wages and learning incentive.

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

National Science Foundation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks 76.167.28.1 for this work. Unfortunately, this won't work as a citation for "The visas are opposed by labor groups, including the Programmers Guild, which claim that they depress wages overall and provide a disincentive to search for American workers", because you are just showing the facts about salaries, rather than a citation that shown for the specifics of the sentence. For example, we need something from a reliable source that shows that the visas are opposed by labour groups, and what these labour groups claim. It is not clear to me that this sentence really needs to be in an article about Giffords, but here is a reference from the Washington Post that would probably do the deed once the page is unlocked.[3] It states that "Some groups, such as the Programmer's Guild, charge that importing foreign labor depresses wages for American employees and hurts the efforts of minorities to make inroads in technology," so only cites the first part of the sentence.Slp1 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about more like this:

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

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

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

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

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


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

1) The Urban Institute 2) The Sloan Foundation 3) The Rand Corporation 4) Harvard University 5) Duke University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] first Anglo Democrat since Morris Udall

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

[edit] he:גבריאל גיפורדס

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

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

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

[edit] External links (template)

Please replace the relevant individual links with this template:

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

[edit] New category

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