This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis, a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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]”
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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago11 comments5 people in discussion
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)Reply
“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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Not done She lost reelection, no indication she has retired from politics. Safiel (talk) 04:03, 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 