Jump to content

Talk:Barbara Boxer

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

Honors and awards section and Abortion catagory

[edit]

I just reviewed the articles of the 40 most senior members of the senate. Only one other senator had a section for 'honors and awards' and that was Feinstein which was limited to one sentence. This whole section should be deleted, or changed to one line mentioning her two honorary doctorate awards. This is the type of thing in this article that makes it sound very 'rah-rah' and more like a political campaign site than a wikepedia article. Comments?

COMPLETELY AGREE. It seems some PR hack has basically written this whole Edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.101.211.30 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Look here: Senator Boxer further distinguished herself by being one of only eight members of the Senate to vote against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.[citation needed]. How does voting make yourself distinguished (successful, authoritative, and commanding great respect.)? Her Job is to vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.101.211.30 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I was reviewing the articles, several had a section documenting the senator's abortion stance, and all refered to it as 'abortion'. Not a single one used the pro-life term 'Life' nor the pro-choice term 'Reproductive Rights'. Wikepedia should use non-bias terms, so the catagory name should be changed to 'abortion' rather than 'reproductive rights'. I invite responses from those able to give unbiased comments. Rodchen (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked another 10 senators articles. The comments above still apply. Since there has been no objection, I will go ahead and make those edits in order to make this article less biased. Rodchen (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of objections, as you well know. Dave Dial (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the objection? Rodchen (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The objection is the same as above, the change does not make the article more neutral. Reproductive rights is not a biased reference, and covers more than just abortion. There is no reason to change it. Dave Dial (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about the term 'santity of life'? That term also, as you say, covers more than just abortion, but it is a term only used by the pro-life side of the arguement, just as 'reproductive rights' is a term only used by the pro-choice side of the argument. I also notice how there are three paragraph under this section, and each and every paragrah deals with abortion, so this section is dealing with abortion. Making the change definately does make the article more neutral, just like changing 'santity of life' to abortion would make an article more neutral. Rodchen (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you mean Sanctity of life. I don't have a problem with that term either, when used in context. I hear it all the time from my Priest. I just changed the section heading to only Reproductive rights(a term used by many in medical and health organizations, including the World Health Organization), since that term includes family planning and birth control. Now I'm off to bed. Good night. Dave Dial (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misspelling. Since Wikepedia is neither a medical or religious encyclopedia, I favor using commonly used terms. Abortion is also a term used by medical and health organizations, and is most commonly used. Besides, we are discussing 'Boxer's political' views here, not her medical views here. In political circles, 'reproductive rights' is only used by pro-choice people; and 'sanctity of life' is only used by pro-life people. Abortion is used by both sides.

You may also notice that the term 'abortion' is used three times in this section, while 'reproductive rights' is not used one single time! The section is about abortion.

I know abortion is a hot and controversial issue, but surely we can at least agree to use reasonable terms to describe it. Flag burning was controversial too, but surely if some editor tried to call it 'Preservation of our national symbol', there would have been objection.

I will allow you a good night sleep, but I hope when you wake up in the morning we can agree to simply change this to 'abortion'. Rodchen (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I object to changing the name of the section to "Abortion". The section also speaks of contraception, which makes the more inclusive title "Reproductive Rights" more accurate. I also object to "Sanctity of Life" due to its political/religious connotations. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am against using the section header "Abortion" because it discusses the following topics which do not necessarily fall under that topic: family planning, Medicaid, contraception, sexual assault, sex education. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those too. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the section under 'social security' also covers retirement, Enron scandal, 401K plans, and accounting practises. Why is there no objection to calling that section 'social security'? 'Reproductive rights' is a politically biased term, used only by liberal, pro-choice people. I have made suggestions for neutral languge which are 'unacceptable'. Somebody else make a suggestion on what to call it. Rodchen (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to calling that section "social security". Gamaliel (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'retirement business business practises and policies'? Rodchen (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds clunky, but I'm okay with the idea of renaming it. I just don't have any ideas at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets discuss it here - both the changing content of the article and the title. Rodchen (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I continue suggesting the unbias title 'abortion', which is continue to be objected to, but nobody has a better, unbiased term. Rodchen (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with the above editors that "abortion" is not the correct term here for the section. Please stop your edit war to add it without consensus here on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already reported him at WP:3RRNB. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dayewalker. I understand your objection (as I stated earlier). Do you have any suggestion on a better title? 117.36.69.42 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I speak for everyone when I say the title and wording of the "Reproductive rights" section is fine as it is. If you are Rodchen editing without logging in, this is a violation of policy on sock puppetry. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually called having poor internet connection, so I get bumped off frequently, no fault of Wikepedia.

The term 'Reproductive Rights' is not a neutral term in the political world. I challenge you to find one pro-life politician who has used the term. I doubt you can. Just like you could not find a pro-choice politician who used the term 'sanctity of life'.

While this discussion is progressing, while trying to reach consensus, I find it troubling that statements (that have been in the article for over six months) were suddently changed, making the paragraphs even more biased and more non-neutral. Rodchen (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you that it's accidental, but please try to be careful about it. You should see a message at the top of the edit box if you're not logged in telling you that you're not logged in.
I'd say the term "reproductive rights" is neutral, and saying it isn't neutral because "pro-lifer"s don't use the term doesn't prove anything. The term "pro-life" isn't neutral because it suggests the "pro-choice" people are "pro-death".
We know how you feel, and we know how I feel. How does everyone else feel about the term "reproductive rights"? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - 'Pro-life' is not a neutral term. Just like 'pro-choice' is not a neutral term, because it suggests pro-life people are anti-choice. I think one evidence that 'sanctity of life' is not neutral is that pro-choice people don't use it. Likewise, one evidence that 'reproductive rights' is not neutral is that pro-life people don't use it. If there was not an option of using a commonly used neutral term, then I would understand the need for deciding which to use, but since there is a term - namely 'abortion', that neutral term should be used. Rodchen (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection from gender-based practices such as female genital cutting (FGC) and male genital mutilation (MGM)

Using your logic, 'Reproductive Rights' is not adequate then either, because the paragraph includes 'improve access to women's health care' which would include mammograms. Should we then call this section 'women's health issues'? No, because it also deals with all kinds of contraceptives. In political circles (which we are dealing with here - Boxer's political stands), reproductive rights is a biased term and should not be used in this context. As another editor pointed out, Sanctity of life is a perfectly acceptable term in the right context - just not describing in a neutral way political stands. The same is true for 'Reproductive Rights'. The best term for this is still 'abortion'. Each paragraph (while including other issues) deals with abortion, and in fact mentioned abortion, before it was inappropriately edited yesterday in order to remove this point of argument. Rodchen (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown any evidence of this being a biased phrase, while I have presented multiple uses by multiple organizations in a non-political, non-biased matter. And you discount "reproductive rights" by saying it doesn't include mammograms. But abortion does? You haven't presented any sort of case that "abortion" is the best term for multiple issues. Gamaliel (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I haven't. Here is a quote from the 'Pro-life' page in Wikepedia:

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. "Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life". Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.

The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion". Rodchen (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in that article that "reproductive rights" is an example of biased framing language is unsourced. I have presented multiple examples of non-partisan organizations using it in an unbiased manner. If this was a matter of "abortion rights" versus "Pro-choice", I might agree with you. But you also want to dump a whole bunch of unrelated things under the "abortion" heading, and you haven't presented any sort of reason why family planning, Medicaid, contraception, sexual assault, and sex education should be represented by "abortion" instead of "reproductive rights". Gamaliel (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insisting on the title 'abortion'. If a better term can be found, I am willing to consider it. I just know 'Reproductive Rights' is biased, and should not be used. There will be no title that is perfect. As I pointed out, 'Reproductive rights' is not perfect either, because the paragraphs include mammograms. Rodchen (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reproductive rights" isn't biased. It's fine. Dayewalker (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no title will be perfect. I'm willing to consider an alternate title provided a case can be made that the current title is inappropriate and the proposed title is not so overly specific that it does not cover much of the contents. It's been demonstrated by widespread non-partisan use of "reproductive rights" that it is perfectly appropriate. It may leave out mammograms, but your proposal leaves out family planning, Medicaid, contraception, sexual assault, and sex education. So under the "nothing is perfect" doctrine, I'm willing to accept the inappropriate placement of mammograms given that leaving out one item among many is far better than singling out one single item and leaving out many. Give me an alternate title that doesn't leave out so many things, then we will have something worth discussing. Until then I think we're going in circles unless you have something new to present. Gamaliel (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me see if I can find a good source for you. I will get back to you in a few days. Rodchen (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barbara Boxer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Barbara Boxer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barbara Boxer. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbara Boxer. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Boxer. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the dates seem wrong

[edit]

I don't know enough to edit this, but it appears that her Senate Environmental Committee listings claim she served as ranking member and as chair through 20 Jan 2021 even though she left the Senate in 2017.

530nm330Hz (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbara_Boxer&oldid=1256334164"