Talk:Cori Bush

MAHSA Act

@Innisfree987 The discussion regarding the MAHSA Act happened here: User talk:IranianDiaspora#Cori Bush

If there is no objections, can you please move it back. IranianDiaspora (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see "consent to add it back". I oppose a mere mention of voting against the MAHSA Act unless (1) you can demonstrate that the vote is significant enough to add to her biography, given all of the votes that she takes that don't get added, and (2) it includes some statement from her about why she voted as she voted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting records that are relatively unique are used on most politician's pages. She was one of the three individuals out of 435 representatives to vote no on the bill. I am feeling uncomfortable for the dual standard being applied here because of my nationality. Just the line above my post was another voting record and there is't this kind of scrutiny and/or arbitrary requirements. This is a piece of information that is not only important to the Americans but also the people in the Middle East whether they support it or not. IranianDiaspora (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your nationality. Well, whether or not to include the content doesn't, but it does seem that your nationality is highly influencing your behavior here. There are tons of votes that go this way (430-3 or so), and you haven't demonstrated why you think that this is important to the Americans but also the people in the Middle East – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

My nationality is not highly influencing my behavior but being targeted is. My addition first got reverted for not having secondary sources which I understood and complied with, then I was baselessly accused of Islamophobia which had nothing to do with this or her and now I see there are higher standards for adding a line about her foreign policy decision. If this was about the Russian president sanctions for example (which I can find references that by no means comply with your standards), I would never have been challenged or labeled like this. IranianDiaspora (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There are many policies and explanatory essays here. One important piece of the policy on verifiability is that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just because Bush voted on the bill doesn't mean that we have to include it. We have to measure the WP:WEIGHT of the vote. Since I don't see any mainstream U.S. publications covering it, I don't think it's DUE to include. Her stances on the Russian invasion may well have more significant coverage and could be due. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Nail and a sledge hammer. I am not suggesting a theory or alleging anything strange (like flat-earth, etc), I backed it with resources but hey, they are not from Pulitzer prize winning authors that the mainstream media covers.

You can feel proud of yourself from suppressing the voice of a minority. Good luck IranianDiaspora (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this is harassment 173.67.0.225 (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history you’ll see that on November 11, I made five edits cutting back material that similarly lacked indication of significance so the allegation this is about nationality is baseless. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on personal talk pages don’t imply consensus especially not when multiple editors have reverted your change; you need to have the discussion on the entry’s talk page where all interested editors can participate. Additionally, voting records are not sufficient basis for inclusion, per WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thank you for pointing to the problems with the Barbara Lee page; I have removed the original research there too. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

As to the secondary sources cited, the All Arab News appears to be a solo blog with no indication of a fact-checking process or editorial oversight, and is therefore not a reliable source. The auto translation of the Independent Persian is too poor for me to be able to see whether it is a fact-checked source. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I can cross out the All Arab News and instead put the roll call as a third reference. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023384

You might be able to get a much better result if you try the Independent Persian content on chat gpt and ask for it to translate it. IranianDiaspora (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully I have to argue that this reflects on her foreign policy (more specifically with Iran), and perhaps her views on targeted sanctions on individuals. IranianDiaspora (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s your opinion. For inclusion on WP, we need independent WP:Secondary sources indicating the significance. The roll call is a primary source and we do not indiscriminately include every vote people make in Congress—only the ones secondary sources show to be significant. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can this be used as secondary sources? https://www.algemeiner.com/2023/09/13/iran-proxies-have-rained-hell-us-house-passes-trio-bills-targeting-islamic-republic/ Also, were you able to verify it using Independent Persian which has an editorial oversight process? IranianDiaspora (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources on why she voted against it? Did she put out any statements about it? I'm not opposed to it being on her page, but it doesn't seem to be a very notable vote, but I could be wrong. Catboy69 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Healing claim

Thoughts on inclusion of her claim that she performed a miracle by removing a homeless woman's tumors by touching her. She wrote it in her 2022 biography "Forerunner" and stated it again in a 2022 interview with Margaret Hoover on PBS.The One I Left (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Listen if a person claims to perform a miracle and it's reported on that should easily be in their biography. 65.194.76.18 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if its a lie 173.67.0.225 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

Former American politician. Sirpsa (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done She lost reelection, no indication she has retired from politics. Safiel (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (2)

Based on the reference to footnote 56 and the details in the NPR article, please consider changing

“On January 30, 2024, Bush confirmed reports that she was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged misuse of federal security money.[55] The Office of Congressional Ethics previously investigated the same allegations and voted unanimously to dismiss the case after finding no evidence of wrongdoing.[56”

To

“On January 30, 2024, Bush confirmed reports that she was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Election Commission, and the House Committee on Ethics for alleged misuse of campaign funds to pay her husband as a member of her security detail.[55][56] According to Bush, The Office of Congressional Ethics, staffed by career government employees, previously investigated the same allegations and voted unanimously to dismiss the case after finding no evidence of wrongdoing.[56]”

This will more accurately the investigations.

Thank you Wallaceandgrommet (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added the FEC part to the first sentence and attributed the claim in the second sentence to Bush. I omitted the part about OCE being staffed by career government employees because it is lifted verbatim from the source and the relevance is unclear.

I also did not describe the allegations as it may be undue, particularly if the claim about OCE finding no wrongdoing is true. I'm on the fence about this since she's definitely a public figure, if other editors disagree feel free to add. Jamedeus (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant to add opponent's information

As per previous US house representatives it does not display PAC:s who supported another opponent. Highly problematic to remove that edit by me. Melledelle (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources have tied Cori Bushes defeat to Israeli lobbying and have published it in the headline: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Still not relevant to the article. Melledelle (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is exactly as relevant or even more then Bush losing the Democratic nomination for her seat to Wesley Bell.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It does not sound neutral to assume that her defeat was solely caused by a foreign power. Steven1991 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The text did not say "solely" or that it was a "foreign power", it said pro-Israel lobbying groups.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

“Reliable sources” are not right on everything. Journalists are humans, who can be affected by biases and interests. It is problematic to claim that some kind of secret powerful group caused Cori Bush’s defeat as it strips the voters of their agency, which is not respectful of the democratic process. Steven1991 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The text did not say that any group that backed her ousting is "secret". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s not a policy-based reason to change the entry. We rely on reliable sources, we don’t have debates among the personal opinions of individual editor—that would be original research. I’m going to untag the article unless you have a concern based in Wikipedia policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be a glaring omission for anyone who followed the election, considering the extent of press coverage as well as Bush's own comments on the funding. If not in the election section, where would be appropriate? Lastchapter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OSE. We follow the sources on the subject of the entry, not Wikipedia entries on other subjects. If it gets a lot of coverage, we include it, if it doesn’t, we don’t. Here it did. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)