Talk:Kelly Loeffler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy

Someone made the allegation comparing the appointment to that of Rod Blagojevich who is in jail for selling a senate seat. You can't include that on a Wikipedia page, because it is deliberately biased and derogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok listen the edit made by that anonymous user will remain down until a consensus is reached. Stop edit warring and talk about it here. Wollers14 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vice President Mike Pence Attends a Ceremonial Swearing-in (49347571861).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Add information of participation in insider trading, related to the corona virus outbreak.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/georgia-senator-dumped-stocks-after-private-meeting-on-coronavirus-report/ 100.1.22.200 (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Has already been added – Thjarkur (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Insider Trading

I've removed the insider trading allegations per similar discussion at Diane Feinstein's article, per user:331dot and user:Muboshgu. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Have we receive consensus yet?SunDawn (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Richard_Burr#COVID-19_response is what happened with the other individual in same situation. Lycurgus (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Burr’s situation was a bit different than Feinstein and Loeffler. The latter both claimed the trades were made independent of anything they ordered, directed by the financial advisors running the blind trusts. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It was added due to WP:RECENTISM, and the size of it looked like WP:UNDUE weight too. We shall see as we learn more about these stock sales, and what (if anything) merits inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A blind trust would be exculpatory. In that case it would be a case of media malpractice, since Burr and Loeffler are being treated as the same thing in the MSM, if without basis then articles on that (MSM distortions) would be the right place. Lycurgus (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The details of what safeguards may or may not exist, and what criminal wrongdoing may or may not have happened is outside the scope of our role as editors. We are not here to speculate. The fact is she owned stock that was sold, it was widely reported, and is highly relevant. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the amount of media focus that Kelly has been given on this issue (more than Feinstein) and Kelly's so far short tenure as a senator without other notable positions or voting history, I think it would be good to include a section about COVID-19 that addresses the stock trading controversy while explaining as succinctly as possible that the trusts are blind. The section should also describe her other actions/positions on COVID-19 and response to the allegations to ensure NPOV. As of right now, not having any section at all is probably even worse for her image given the headlines circulating around her. Shadybabs (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess I would agree with that. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is absurd, laughable and highly inappropriate to have this information omitted from the text having in mind that this is the only reason her name is being mentioned in the media. It is as if we were to omit the fact that she was appointed senator. Mr Ernie Please kindly return this information in the article.Radiohist (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to the article just to read about the insider trading stuff, and was surprised it wasn't in here. I think it should be added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Currently the news coverage is the best source of it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie That is no excuse and you know it. If you are attempting to censor Wikipedia, then I will be forced to contact an administrator.Radiohist (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would welcome administrator attention to this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe the current version contains the best mix of NPOV and DUE, and further attempts to include additional information should gain consensus on the talk page first. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

So, you're saying "your" version is excellent and any other version is UNDUE? Interesting approach. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to summarize the consensus given so far in this thread. You'll note there's no mention of it on Diane Feinstein's page, and her situation was very similar to Loeffler's. Have I called the version excellent? I'm not seeing where I said that. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, why are you talking about a different article? Do that on the other article's talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The current version is grossly inadequate. All it says is that she sold stock. So what? Most members of Congress are much better off financially than the average American, so many of them own stocks and engage in routine transactions. The article must, at a minimum, mention that (a) Loeffler, like all members of Congress, is subject to particular restrictions found in the STOCK Act, which prohibits trading based on information garnered through official business; and (b) these transactions (mostly sales, but including purchases of companies that stood to benefit from the spread of work-from-home) came "after she was privately briefed by federal officials about the coronavirus outbreak." (That's per CNBC.)

Furthermore, Loeffler, who has no electoral history, is currently facing a serious primary challenge from Rep. Doug Collins, and Collins has made it a major attack point. (I don't normally think much of citing Fox News, but, as the house organ of the right wing of the GOP, it's reliable when it comes to reporting statements made by conservatives like Collins.) Even if some Wikipedians in their august wisdom reject the charge that Loeffler did something wrong, the controversy is notable, and hence worthy of inclusion, because of the distinct possibility that many voters will think she did something wrong. For example, one political blog has commented: "In particular, it is inconceivable that Loeffler can avoid taking serious damage from her stock trades. Given that she wasn't elected in the first place, that damage will likely be fatal to her reelection chances." An obvious parallel is the phony "Swift Boat" allegations against John Kerry in 2004 -- so phony that the term "Swiftboating" has, per our article, entered the lexicon "to describe an unfair or untrue political attack." The attack is, nevertheless, summarized in Kerry's bio and even elaborated on in a daughter article.

Our coverage of the Loeffler controversy should certainly include her defense, namely her assertion that she had no involvement in making the trading decisions. We should report both sides fairly. The current text falls far short of that standard. JamesMLane t c 16:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

JamesMLane, please see WP:RECENTISM. For one thing, we know what impact the swiftboating had in 2004. We have no idea what impact this will have on her election (see WP:CRYSTAL as well). Anything Collins says/does about it belongs at 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia, but may not belong here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, please see the hatnote to Wikipedia:Recentism, which points out: “This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” That page is not to be invoked as a talisman that excludes all content of recent origin.

You assert that the treatment of the swiftboating of John Kerry was different because “we know what impact the swiftboating had in 2004.” As one of the people who was editing the Kerry bio during the 2004 campaign, I can confidently tell you that you’re wrong. To this day, we don’t know for sure what the impact was, and we certainly didn’t know at the time. What we knew then about Kerry was what we know now about Loeffler: There were certain indisputable facts about a political candidate, there were other factual allegations that weren’t so clear, people opposed to the candidate had criticized the candidate on the subject, and the criticisms had received considerable media coverage. Those are sufficient indicia of notability.

The coverage of the swiftboating wasn’t an issue of WP:CRYSTAL because we didn’t include a prediction, in Wikipedia’s voice, about what impact it would probably have. WP:CRYSTAL doesn’t mean we don’t include campaign controversies until after the election. It just means we don’t make predictions.

The current text of the Loeffler bio doesn’t let concerns about “recentism” stand in the way of presenting one side of the issue (hers), or from quoting as authoritative one CNN author’s opinion, with no recognition that other people disagree. For NPOV, we should add the specific points I mentioned, about the STOCK Act and the Congressional briefing. If further details get added, so that the section begins to assume undue weight, then we would (per WP:SS) move the full treatment to 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia, as you suggest, or to a separate daughter article, but still include in the main bio article a fair summary. JamesMLane t c 00:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There are more RSs at Talk:STOCK Act#potential violations related to SARS-2 non-public insider info, add?.

X1\ (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Husband donated a million to Trump's Super PAC immediately after scandal broke

It's clearly relevant to Loeffler's bio that her husband, who is involved with her in stock trading scandal, donated a million $ to Trump's Super Pac shortly after the stock trading scandal broke and at a time when there was enormous pressure on the Republican Party to get her out of the 2020 Senate election race in Georgia, as well as pressure to pursue her and her husband for insider trading. There are countless RS that cover this donation in the context of her and her husband's stock trading scandal. Omitting it is a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, what exactly do sources say? Please provide some. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Politico: "Jeff Sprecher, the husband of Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), sent a $1 million check to the leading pro-Trump super PAC even as she been fending off criticism around her family’s stock trading.... Sprecher’s donation came as Loeffler has faced increasing criticism over stock trading during the coronavirus pandemic. She offloaded stocks shortly after a classified briefing on Covid-19 in January... Loeffler is facing a tough intraparty challenge for her seat from Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.)... The National Republican Senatorial Committee has stuck with Loeffler despite the inquiry."[1]
• NY Times: "White House Worries About Kelly Loeffler’s Senate Prospects in Georgia: President Trump, concerned about his own outlook in the state, plans to stay on the sideline in a race where he favored a different choice for senator... Ms. Loeffler’s supporters in Washington want Mr. Trump to understand what he would be risking by abandoning the wealthy Ms. Loeffler: her husband, one top Senate Republican official noted on Friday, just donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s “super PAC” last month, and the couple have directed tens of thousands of dollars more to key Senate races."[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It was added with a misleading edit summary about committee assignments. Rich people make donations all the time. Why is a donation by her husband relevant to her bio? Doesn’t that belong on his? I don’t see the point for adding it as it has nothing to do with her. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be included in both of their biographies. See my comment below for explanation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it wasn't added with any edit summary, actually.[3] Which is not ideal, but not a deal breaker. Loeffler-friendly sources seemed to be the ones making a big deal of the donation, as a way of keeping Trump from endorsing Collins. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand how implying Loeffler did something wrong is a means of keeping Trump for endorsing her opponent. And all of that is SYNTH. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Who said Loeffler did anything wrong? This was legal per the Citizens United decision. I'm leaning to not including it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

*Yes Her husband donating $1 Million to a pro-Trump PAC should be included in Loeffler's bio and the "tens of thousands of dollars" the couple donated to other Senate races should also be included. In this WP article, both Loeffler and her husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, are included together as possibly violating insider trading laws because their stocks are owned jointly. And in this WP article, both Loeffler & her husband are included together as preparing to sell the stocks they purchased during their possible insider trader violations. So, who and what they donate their money to should also be included as described by reliable sources (above). BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should her husbands activities be included in her article? You’ve done a great job keeping well sourced but negative info out of the Biden pages - why are you going against that BLP stance to include dubious implications in this one? What’s the difference between the two? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To Mr Ernie - The answer to the question you asked me is in my comment that you replied to. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The connection is made by RS reports. We follow the sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't think this belongs in Loeffler's bio, especially after the FBI has concluded the investigation into her, but I'll let someone else remove it. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead mention

While we're here, I see that the summary of this was removed from the lead. This controversy is the main source of Loeffler's national notability. I am inclined to restore some or all of the well-sourced lead content, moving the remainder to the article body. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ll remove it again. She’s a US Senator, not accused of any credible wrongdoing. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We just follow what the sources say. This controvevrsy is the fount of her notability. Nothing else about her rises to nearly the level of this controversy. That's what sources tell us. There would have to be good reason to keep removing well-sourced mainstream narrative from the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revisit NOTNEWS. US senators, especially those with notable pre-service careers, as implicitly notable people, are frequently the subjects of current news articles. Such coverage doesn’t equate encyclopedic relevance. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Her entire notability is recent - dating from her interim Senate appointment. This is not a NOTNEWS issue. The trading controversy is the largest section of article content. It needs to be reflected in the lead. That's just how we write articles. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Being a Senator and being embroiled in the stock trading scandal are the only things of note in Loeffler's bio. The lead should summarize the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A successful female businessperson and WNBA team co-owner doesn’t make your list of things of note? I don’t buy into that, sorry. There’s also no current evidence she’s “embroiled” in anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There are hundreds of millions of successful female businesspersons in the world. There is no significant media coverage of Loeffler until her appointment to fill the brief remainder of the Georgia senate term. None. In fact, I think the fluffier parts of the article text need to be trimmed a bit. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, disagree with that. As the article's creator, I found much from before her appointment and created the article when her name was getting mentioned, but before Kemp made it official. I saw enough coverage of her business career to publish it without a Senate appointment. What's so "fluffy" in here? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve removed it from the lead again since I don’t feel we have a solid consensus here for such overwhelming detail in the lead. I guess I’ll let someone else decide whether they think it belongs. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I agree with you regarding the overwhelming detail. I lean toward "yes" when it comes to some inclusion in the lead, given that the story has driven a significant portion of her notability, but the space devoted to it did seem disproportionate. Perhaps something much simpler, such as the following, would be more appropriate:

Loeffler has faced allegations of misconduct linked to the 2020 Congressional insider trading scandal. She has denied the allegations.

RedHotPear (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just putting out there what I currently believe is reasonable and might get some consensus. Things may be different as the story develops. RedHotPear (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We have a WP:RECENTISM / WP:DUE issue that I don't know how to easily resolve. The stock story is big, but it's not Burr big. The FBI hasn't seized her cell phone, so far as we know. It's probably best to leave it out of the lead until we are sure it should be included. It may well be part of why she doesn't win in November, it may be that the story develops and we do need to include it in the lead before November. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. All I know for sure is this is a BLP and we don't know much about the stock transactions other than that it doesn't "look" good. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the lead, and one sentence should do it. -- Valjean (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

One sentence as opposed to what it has been would help resolve the DUE aspect. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was far too much detail for the lead. One sentence, or two with the denial, should be good enough. -- Valjean (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That's essentially what RedHotPear suggested above. Should we open a straw poll? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a poll is needed. There seems to be consensus for a brief pro forma mention and her rejection of the claim. Unfortunately, this being an election year, part of the significance of this is her primary opponent, Collins, having made a big issue of this. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Simple and short mention fulfills the requirements of LEAD. My rule of thumb: If a topic deserves its own section, it deserves some form of mention in the lead. That ensures all major topics in an article are mentioned in the lead, which is what's required. -- Valjean (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Investigation concludes

The investigation into Loeffler has concluded [4], so I think we can nip this nothingburger in the bud. There is still no evidence that Loeffler has done anythign wrong, and to devote such a large portion of her page to it is overkill. Calling it a "scandal" is inappropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a scandal for Burr, for sure, but this isn't Burr's page. Now that the DOJ investigation into Loeffler has concluded, I'm less inclined to add anything to the lead on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, please don't share your personal opinions here, "no evidence she did anything wrong", The investigation related to the law concerning insider trading (a defined term) in the U.S. Code. The significant RS reporting concerns the public, and most importantly her primary opponent, having accused her of ethical lapses which were not addressed or adjudicated by the Justice Department. We'll have to see whether those concerns continue to be covered in press accounts of Loeffler. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again with your “don’t share personal opinions” trope on the talk page. I’m referencing reliable sources which have said that. Stop attacking my talk page posts, which you’ve done to me and many others for a long time now. Personal editorial opinions are exactly what the talk pages are for. I really wish you would leave your personal comments about me out, as you’ve been warned several times now for doing. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Did you get nothingfries with that too? I didn't see a RS reference to a nothingburger. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that "nothingburger" is a fair description, Mr Ernie. But this does mean that she will likely not face any legal ramifications, which might well decrease the situation's notability and how much weight we should give it on this article. I'm ambivalent on lead inclusion at this point. RedHotPear (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Personal editorial opinions are exactly what the talk pages are for" so says Mr. Ernie. That's good to know.

I've not seen any RS call Loeffler's alleged "Insider Trading" violations a "nothingburger" - and since Mr. Ernie says this talk page is designed for "personal editorial opinions," I suppose I won't get called out for voicing Esquires' [5] opinion that Loeffler's "nothingburger" may have had a $1Million dollar price tag attached to it:

"Say you’re a United States senator. You get a classified briefing or two regarding an approaching pandemic and you adjust your stock portfolio. This is not a recognized therapeutic, but it’s good for your bottom line. This is revealed in the press, and people start using distinctly non-therapeutic terms like “insider trading” and “Leavenworth.” The Department of Justice gets curious. OK, things are getting pretty dicey. And then your husband donates $1 million bucks to Trump's campaign. And then the DOJ calls off the investigation. Coincidence!"

That sure would be one very expensive "nothingburger." BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, evoking the meaty denials of recently departed and controverisal White House press secretary Sara Huckabee Sanders is unfair to Loeffler, whose actions are reported in RS on their merits and without reference to partisan deflections and jargon. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also be aware that there is a standalone article 2020 Congressional insider trading scandal, where editors may be interested to participate. The details of the "scandal" are more appropriate there, with potential effects on Loeffler's re-election bid better fleshed out here. Also, I read that Esquire article, and I guess Dianne Feinstein ought to be thankful for Loeffler's husband's donation too! Mr Ernie (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To Mr Ernie In the Esquire article you're referring to, I do see where Kelly Loeffler's husband donated $1 Million to Trump's campaign right before Trump's DOJ dropped the investigation of Loeffler's alleged "insider trading" violations, but I don't see any mention of DOJ dropping investigation of Dianne Feinstein because Loeffler's husband donated $1 Million to Trump's campaign. Can you give me the Esquire quote that supports your comment on that? Thanks! BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of that either. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To Mr Ernie - as you know, I've not been a volunteer here at WP for very long so I have a serious protocol question for you: Since you do not see any mention to support your comment regarding Trump's DOJ dropping investigation of Dianne Feinstein because Kelly Loeffler's husband donated $1 Million to Trump's campaign, then is protocol for you to strike that part of your comment? BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That comment was irrelevant, it was personal opinion, it was not supported by any RS, and it was a BLP smear of Sen. Feinstein. Just pointless. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it not a BLP smear to suggest the donation had anything to do with ending the investigation? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, he cited a source directly in the post making that connection. And there are many others. Please read a variety of RS discussions of the article topic and refresh your understanding. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure Betsy. You’re using this talk page to share an opinion piece that speculated that the donation by Loeffler’s husband may have somehow had something to do with the DOJ dropping the investigation into Loeffler, Inhofe, and Feinstein. I was just making a joke that they’re probably thankful for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I entirely agree. Compare the lede for this page—just for example—to that of Raphael Warnock, where there is zero mention of the numerous controversies surrounding him. A crystal-clear picture of egregious bias. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make. Warnock was never accused of profiting off of a pandemic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgul, while I appreciate your criticism of my argument as "not good", simply shutting down discussion with WP:XYZ isn't ultimately a reasoned or compelling response. In fact, the page you cite makes clear that: "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Which was precisely my point. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros, you left off the first three words of that quote: "when used correctly". You are not using the argument correctly. The page then gives the example of "harmonizing file names of a set of images" for using comparisons correctly. Warnock and Loeffler are different people, they have done different things, and therefore their biographies are different in certain key respects. If you have an actual specific point that you would like to make about bias on this page, please bring it up. Since, after all, I did not "shut down" any discussion here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I did make a specific point—that even a cursory glance at the leads shows a clear bias. In any event, responding with tautologies doesn't inform this debate—nor does claiming that a policy illustrated with a single example only applies to that example (a bizarre interpretation of "example"). As you will note, the article you cited also says quite clearly that: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." And further guidance on the topic makes perfectly clear that "dismissing [arguments] outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged"—which is in fact precisely what you did, no? Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Marrying husband is biggest risk quote

I don't understand why this sentence is in the article: "After marrying the firm's CEO, Jeffrey Sprecher, in 2004, a courtship Sprecher described as her biggest risk "because if it didn't work out, she'd be on the short end of the stick," Is that sentence there to convey that she has a sense of humor? I do not understand why that sentence is there unless you guys are 1] trying to talk about her sense of humor and that is part of her personality or 2] she doesn't necessary hvae a sense of humor, but has very good PR team, including those who added that sentence of being a younger wife to a wealthy older man is a risk. Maybe you guys hsould add a personality section of Loeffler, and talkk about how she has a sense of humor OR she has a good PR team, including adding sentences like that in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Sprecher her husband ? So HE is saying that she took the risk of losing her job if she didn't manage to marry him. Aesma (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing her political philosophy and record in the lead

I fail to see why we should not add a self-description of her as the most conservative Republican in the Senate to the lead, as well as her touting that she has a 100% voting record with Trump. Per all RS, her short political career has been defined by being avowedly and staunchly pro-Trump, and the body makes that perfectly clear. Currently, the lead just includes a weird sentence, saying "An ad in her 2020 campaign claimed she has a "100 percent Trump voting record."" That sentence should be changed to "During her short career in the Senate, she has characterized herself as the most conservative Republican in the Senate. She has been a staunch ally of Donald Trump, touting her "100 percent Trump voting record."" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It sounds pretty promotional. This is her self-description and her campaign talking point. Marquardtika (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We frequently add politicians' self-descriptions to their leads (e.g. moderate, libertarian, conservative, progressive, social democratic). In the case of Loeffler, these self-descriptions are consistent with how RS have covered her record: as a staunch Trump ally. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we want to make this article a campaign ad for Loeffler, we should seek to tie her to Trump as much as possible. "Loeffler enters the race with an extra incentive to maintain a laser focus on the hard-line conservative voters she courted throughout her campaign" and "If either of the Republican Senate candidates were to chart a course at great variance with that of Trump, they would risk turning off some of those Trump supporters. Their strategy may well be, don't alienate any of our Republican supporters." Her discrediting of the election results is also a campaign tactic ("Ms. Loeffler and Mr. Perdue, who have both long professed their fealty to Mr. Trump, were essentially doubling down on that sentiment, signaling that their campaigns could be more about turning out the conservative base of Trump supporters than repositioning to the political center...") So, the more you load this article up with Trumpiness and red meat conservatism, the more you're reflecting her campaign talking points and doing her a favor. Which seems not terribly encyclopedic, but go for it, I guess. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please please please fix this!!!

I see the article is locked for editing, which is cool, I understand, but some of the recent editing has completely fucked up one of the sentences in the Political Positions section. What the hell, people? Proofread your goddamn changes!

Will somebody who has the authority please fix the screw-up, which I will document here. The section in question says:

...She is a cosponsor of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and she opposes the Assault Weapons Ban and the Red Flag laws. constructing a border wall along the Mexico–United States border, and the appointment of conservative judges to federal courts...

Notice the sentence fragment "...Red Flag laws. constructing a border wall..."

A previous edit enhanced her 2nd Amendment bona fides by completely screwing up that paragraph. I suggest putting "She favors" in front of the dangling sentence fragment that starts "constructing a border wall..."

Please please please fix this editing travesty. Thank you. I'd do it myself, but you know, you got it locked against vandals. 2600:1700:6EB0:80E0:D59A:C963:C164:90E9 (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Loeffler's "100 percent Trump voting record"

@Davefelmer:, @Neutrality: I concur with User:Nuetrality regarding recent edits by User:Davefelmer. I feel a need to comment especially on the deletion from the lede: 'Loeffler has strongly aligned herself to President Donald Trump and touted her "100 percent Trump voting record" during the campaign.<ref name=":0" />'

User:Davefulmer commented that, "This is not lede-worthy. Have we got some kind of activist surge going on here or something?)" and that "This is not encyclopedic content nor NPOV." I checked the source: "Win or Lose, It’s Donald Trump’s Republican Party" from the New York Times of 2020-10-27: The source seems reliable and as balanced as any source can be under the present circumstances. And it clearly supports the claim. Moreover, it seems to me to be highly relevant to the current 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia. User:Davefulmer's edits seem to me to be POV in toning down or deleting comments that seem quite relevant and solidly supported by the cited sources.

I haven't checked the sources cited in other edits by User:Davefulmer reverted by User:Neutrality, but if these edits are typical, then I support User:Neutrality in those cases as well. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What's POV

@Davefelmer: I respectfully disagree with your 2020-11-20T06:17:13 deletions:

• The Wikipedia article on the "2020 Congressional insider trading scandal" mentioned her name and cited two reputable sources for your deletion of the comment that "She is linked to the 2020 Congressional insider trading scandal". Other editor thought that the mention you deleted from the lede was so notable that it's now an article by itself. I think deleting it is a violation of WP:NPOV.
• I also think that enough people are making a distinction between Intersex and transgender that it's appropriate for that to be mentioned.
• To report on '"failures" in the election' without mentioning that they are "without evidence" is, to me at least, a violation of WP:NPOV.

I am therefore reverting these edits. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There is an almost overwhelming amount of evidence of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Especially in Georgia. Should I provide a list? Jroehl (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: Please provide the list.

There is an overwhelming amount of propaganda. The evidence I've seen supports the claim that the rules of evidence in the court of public opinion is whatever will maximize the power of those who control the money for the media. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The article in question can mention her name as much as it likes, she was cleared of wrongdoing by the Senate and spamming a bunch of information about it with a presumption of guilt into the lead is in fact the total opposite of WP:NPOV as well as WP:UNDUE. What you’re saying makes absolutely no sense. And no, reporting on alleged failures, which are rightfully in quotation marks, should not be accompanied by claims of no evidence as investigations are ongoing and it’s not our job to judge ahead of time. To do so is again, simply partisan nonsense. If this were a murder investigation and the suspect LOOKED like he might get off, we would still say it’s ongoing, what the allegation is and wait for the verdict. Not start spamming about how expert xyz says there’s no evidence, the accusation is a farce and the suspect is bound to walk free. Davefelmer (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's discuss the question of "no evidence" of voter fraud: Could you please provide me with any substantive evidence to support Republican claims of serious deficiencies in this election?

The most careful analysis I know of this issue is the Julie A. Robinson (18 June 2018), Findings of fact and conclusions of law in Fish v. Kobach (PDF), Wikidata Q97940156. Judge Julie Robinson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, a Republican, concluded that the Kansas Documentary Proof of Citizenship law effectively prevented over 31,000 US citizens from legally registering to vote to block 39 non-citizens, whom Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach had found on the voter registration rolls. The 31,000 were mostly younger folk whom Republicans have known for decades are more likely to vote Democratic and therefore have targeted for voter suppression.

Democrats have in the past engaged in similar efforts, especially during the Jim Crow era. However, more Republicans than Democrats seem to have engaged in these kinds of activities since 1980 when Republican Christian Conservative Paul Weyrich told a Religious Roundtable, I don't want everybody to vote. .... [O]ur leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

The mainstream media, including the so-called liberal media, seem to have avoided making an issue of this until just the past few months. They have a conflict of interest in honestly reporting on anything that might threaten the social status of those who control the money for the media. See also Wikiversity:Electoral integrity in the United States. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: this is my $.02. Democrats are channeling all of their frustration over the fact that the Democratic Party didn't take the Senate in the November election into this article and David Perdue. It is being loaded up with lots of campaign talking points and red meat conservatism. Which is honestly pretty hilarious, because that's exactly what the campaigns of Loeffler and Perdue are trying to do (play to the base rather than reach "purple" or moderate voters). Republicans always win Georgia run-offs. It's a different electorate than shows up in November. Plus, PredictIt says the GOP will retain the Senate, and PredictIt is never wrong. 3 out of 4 Republicans doubt the fairness of the 2020 election. So yes, there is lots of egregious POV-pushing going on in this article and in Perdue's. It has become a bit of a playground for people who are smarting over the Democratic Party's performance down ballot in November. Ironically, the content being added is likely just serving the interests of Loeffler and Perdue in their efforts to energize the right-wing base. You can keep trying to improve the neutrality of these pages, or you can sit back, roll your eyes, and wait until January, when Republicans will win both races not in spite of, but because of the sure-to-backfire efforts of partisan Democratic editors. Marquardtika (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, please keep your original research off of talk pages and remember that we don't know what will happen next. I highly doubt the sure-to-backfire efforts of partisan Democratic editors are "sure to backfire" or have any effect on an election at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

POV Use of publicity photo

Kelly Loeffler publicity photo at Georgia Greater Black Chamber of Commerce meeting - 2020 01

I questioned the fair use/public domain, which seems legitimate, but I question the use of this photo which would seem to have no use except promotional for the campaign? What relevance does it have to the article? I would hope that we could view this as a subject that requires consensus. Activist (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Donation notability

I deleted the paragraph about the $3 million donation by Loeffler's husband to a fund that provided PPEs for those, one presumes, who were tasked with dealing with actual or potential coronavirus victims. It certainly contributed to the commonweal. While that sum might seem immense to someone living within close range of the poverty level, the WP article notes that Loeffler's husband who made the donation, is worth $165 million. The contribution constituted a tax-deductible amount that was less than 2% of his net worth. So the question is, is this notable, or was a written-off expenditure motivated to make her look as though she was concerned about appearances with regard to the pandemic while she was seeking election to the seat she holds? At the time she was probably not holding "superspreader" events. We could contrast his contribution, for instance, with probable thousands of donations by George Soros to a plethora of causes that could be argued by some were only made to improve his image and to dilute the effect of the baseless "nazi sympathizer" accusations that are made about him so regularly. Should his article have a detailed list of all those contributions, even though he's not even running for any office? We could ask the same question about immensely larger contributions made by Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett. I think that a restoration of such a mention to Loeffler's article should be a subject of inclusion only by consensus. Activist (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: @Muboshgu: Since I had mentioned George Soros, I figured I ought to check his WP article to get some frame of reference. I haven't time to read it all, but right near the top it notes that he's given away about 80% of his wealth. It also notes that he made few political contributions before 2004. Both of those facts surprised me. It further notes that his children and his late brother (I didn't know he had any) have been notable philanthropists. I look forward to reading the bulk of the articles about Soros when I have more time. Ah, it also notes that a substantial amount of the negative and frequently demonstrably questionable publicity about him have been generated by Bill O'Reilly and Steve Bannon, both of whom have stellar reputations, of course. Activist (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is about her, not her husband, so it makes sense to remove a information about her husbands activities. Astuishin (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Assessment presented as fact

I edited a statement about Marjorie Greene. Where it said she had a history of racist commentary, I changed it to say commentary that has been judged as racist. The statement is cited, to a piece by CNN. CNN might be widely regarded as reliable (although however careful they might be with regard to fact, surely nobody can deny that they pursue a clear agenda). But still, calling commentary "racist" is an assessment, not a statement of fact--unless it's incredibly blatant. Indeed, I followed a link from the CNN piece to find those allegedly racist statements, and the ones I found strike me as not racist at all. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

She is not a senator !!!

She is not a senator !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.85.104 (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

According to senate.gov she is still senator TorKr (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This USA Today article[6] says that she will remain a U.S. Senator until Warnock is sworn in and takes office, apparently because her appointment was for Isakson's term that runs through 2023. 108.30.70.245 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

She is still a senator because they haven't finished counting the votes yet. When the race is certified, a certificate gets sent to Congress, and on that basis, Warnock is sworn in and Loeffler's tenure ends. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No evidence of fraud in Georgia during the 2020 Presidential election???...

UNFOUNDED claims of fraud???... So just WHO were those poll workers who sent everyone home (including the Republican poll watchers), the 4 remained behind and pulled suitcases out from under a table, ostensibly to jam thousands of hidden ballots into the system... They feverishly worked for two solid hours doing whatever... Every one of those "workers" needs to be hauled in IMMEDIATELY, put under oath under penalty of perjury, and interviewed separately to see just what went on... While it may or may not impact the eventual outcome in Georgia...the public deserves to know the truth... [unsigned comment from User:108.185.238.182 at 2020-12-04T21:00:42]

Dear User:108.185.238.182: Wikipedia insists that all contributions be written from a neutral point of view, citing credible sources. Daniel Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics by documenting many defects in how people think, including many ways we are misled. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that there is also evidence of 1,000 individuals "double-voting" in the 2020 election, which is "a serious felony, carries a penalty of one to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000", per the NYT. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I just read that article. Raffensperger says there was double voting, but presents no evidence. He just says investigations are ongoing. Also. the article is from September and only talks about the primary elections, not the general, so this is completely irrelevant to the IP's nonsensical claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Tenure and Political positions

I think the comment ([non-primary source needed]) appended to footnote 52 misapplies Wikipedia policy on primary sources and should be removed.

In the previous sentence, an interpretive statement of the bill's intent is made, it cites a secondary source. In the following sentence the predicate fact for this interpretation is introduced--the relevant portion of the bill's text. The citation for that portion of the bill's text is Congress.gov, deemed here "primary source."

Wikipedia's policy is: A primary source must be 1) "reputably published," 2) used "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" that can 3) "be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

1) "Reputably published."

The Congress.gov website is "the official website for U.S. federal legislative information. The site provides access to accurate, timely, and complete legislative information for Members of Congress, legislative agencies, and the public. It is presented by the Library of Congress (LOC) using data from the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, the Government Publishing Office, Congressional Budget Office, and the LOC's Congressional Research Service." (https://www.congress.gov/about) There literally is no more reputable or reliable public source for the text of bills in Congress, and everything on the site is accessible at no cost to anyone with access to a computer and the Internet.

The footnote's link provides direct access to a facsimile of the bill's full, official text as printed for use by Congress.

Any "secondary" source for the bill's text is by definition less reliable.

2) The citation supports a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact" ("The bill states...,") and what follows is an accurate, direct quote from the bill.

It cannot reasonably be argued that the quote chosen is peripheral, misrepresents the bill's intent or elides other possible interpretations by omitting context, because it is:

a) used in the bill's preamble as the definition of "sex" that forms the basis of the bill's stated purpose, and

b) reappears as the exact wording of the bill's proposed amendment to existing law.

3) The fact that the quotation is accurate can be "verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Anyone with Internet can access the primary source. The footnote links directly to the bill. The bill is very short (24 lines of text). No specialized knowledge is required to compare the quote on Wikipedia with the quoted portion of the bill's text.

In short I argue that the citation is wholly within Wikipedia's primary source policy. To substitute or add a secondary source for the bill's text is to cite a superfluous and less-reliable source.Adenisj (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adenisj: I 100% concur. I trust you won't object to my having deleted that "non-primary source needed" flag, thereby depriving you of the satisfaction of having done so ;-) Thanks for your work in trying to inject sanity into this excessively zealous interpretation of one of Wikipedia's rules. If someone tries to restore that flag, we can together insist that a detailed response to your concerns be provided. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal)

== Personal life == Newbie to editing and this page is locked. Suggested edit to 'Personal life' section for Kelly Loeffler re 'They live in Tuxedo Park, Atlanta,[83] in a $10.5 million, 15,000-square-foot (1,400 m2)...bought in the most expensive residential real estate transaction ever recorded in Atlanta.[14]" Please amend to specify i.e. 'as of 2013'. Case in point: Tyler Perry's larger 2016 deal, see: Particlesarewaves (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)particlesarewaves

If I'm reading the section right, there is an address in that section (a named estate in a named neighbourhood) which is against WP:BLPPRIVACY. So a more policy-compliant amendment would be removal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If the statement about a record is obsolete, and if the specific location really identifies the residence, and since there has been no objection, I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I object and have restored this with the note that it was the largest at the time. This is validly sourced information from a secondary source, which is not against WP:BLPPRIVACY, which refers to primary sources. Loeffler's residence is widely reported and our inclusion of this is not a violation of privacy. Reywas92^Talk 08:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Reywas92. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

I believe that Reywas32'sReywas92's comment is wrong, WP:BLPPRIVACY does not appear to be saying "you can ignore privacy if you use a secondary source". I further believe that Reywas32'sReywas92's re-insertion is wrong, WP:BLPUNDEL does not appear to be saying "you can ignore good-faith BLP objections if you decide you are right". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, you are misreading WP:BLPPRIVACY, I think. The section header BLPPRIVACY directs to reads "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources". The section says that info included in reliable sources is valid, but be careful when using primary sources. The information about the house in Tuxedo Park comes from reliable sources and is 100% valid to include. It does not fall under BLPPRIVACY. Regarding BLPUNDEL, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. That is the case here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Re WP:BLPPRIVACY, the original section header was just "Privacy of personal information" but SlimVirgin merged it with "Primary sources" on 07 April 2010 with edit summary = "Gigs, how about this?" (referring to Gigs). I didn't see the reasoning for this edit in the talk page around this time but perhaps either of them can explain: was there intent to change the section's meaning and make it appear that WP:BLPPRIVACY was operative only if sources were primary? Re WP:BLPUNDEL, Muboshgu has quoted one sentence and said that the material complies with content policies. I disagree but what's more important is what the very next sentence says: "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." That didn't happen.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Peter Gulutzan it seems both logically tortured and a serious mistake to argue that caution must only be used with personal information when the source is a primary one. It is also odd to see that the guidance was merged into "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources"—but the "and" would be a restrictive "when" if the guidance had been intended to apply only to primary sources. The standard being proposed—that linking to any non-primary RS which includes personal information can never violate BLP—seems a bad precedent, and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the privacy concerns. Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92, Muboshgu, Elle Kpyros, I have taken this to the WP:BLP talk page, section Proposed change to WP:BLPPRIVACY header. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the wording of BLP, it would be absurd to suggest we must protect her privacy about their home(s), when they were more than happy to talk about it in a magazine interview and it's in the first paragraph of an article in the New York Times. This is not private personal information. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

When would service end?

I find that Loeffler is currently an appointee to an unexpired term and "Loeffler is running in the 2020 Georgia U.S. Senate special election, which will fill the Senate seat until Georgia's regularly scheduled November 2022 election." Was/is that election for THE REST OF THE TERM, which ends on 3 Jan. 2023? (If so, the article needs to be adjusted.) Yes, I see that is part of Jan. 5 runoff because this seat was voted on last Nov. 3 and gave nobody a majority; Loeffler remains an appointee senator in the meantime. Carlm0404 (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia" article does indeed say that the runoff winner will serve until the term end. I am from outside of Georgia and don't feel l qualify to make correction myself to Loeffler article; presumably "Georgia's regularly scheduled November 2022 election", part of a longer quote above, should be replaced by "the term ends on January 3, 2023".Carlm0404 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarification made. The rest of the US Senate term, ends on January 3, 2023. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Status as 'junior' US Senator, could change.

So, if Loeffler & Perdue win their respective runoffs, they'll switch places as junior & senior US Senators in Georgia. GoodDay (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to clarify that there was no evidence of fraud in 2020

The editor Davefelmer keeps edit-warring out content that communicates to our readers that Loeffler's claims of fraud in the 2020 election are without evidence. We cannot leave it unclear whether there was fraud or there wasn't. By omitting that there is no evidence of any fraud, the text fails to adhere to what RS say and flagrantly violates WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Random height trivia?

The trivia factoid about her height as compared to other women in congress in "Personal Life" seems out of place and irrelevant. 2607:FEA8:4C21:E100:5CC:6218:CB5C:8915 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed SRD625 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Eruditess (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Trump 100% voting record"

It seems worth mentioning that Loeffler had a 100% voting record partially because she had been in congress for a shorter period than some of her colleagues. For example, Kevin Cramer supported Trump on all the same votes Loeffler did, Cramer just had a longer track record. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/kevin-cramer/

It also seems worth mentioning that this is no longer true as she supported the defense bill which Trump did not.

Ethanbrs (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

Lax 71.241.212.218 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail II^[✉] 23:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

change Loefflert to Loeffler in the U.S. Senate => Appointment section, paragraph 3 2600:1700:A700:6D60:9099:9582:8EEF:C17 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Loeffler's name is misspelled

In the first sections talking about her filling Isakson's seat, her name is spelled "Loefflert" Negrong502 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It is under her US Senate Appointment section Negrong502 (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed with the above edit request RudolfRed (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on replacing "Lost a close race" with "called in favor of opponent" for now

At the end of second paragraph of this Article, mentions "She lost a close race to Warnock." The results are not yet certified. So, I think the statement that she lost isn't appropriate right now. I believe the statement that "major news outlets have called the race in favor of Democrat Warnock" is a more appropriate statement to make with appropriate references, which can be seen in Raphael Warnock's Article, under second paragraph. Final results can be updated later on. CX Zoom (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright so @Tartan357: has already DONE it, a few minutes back. CX Zoom (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct Intro Please

Her Husband is the CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, not its owner. Intercontinental Exchange is public and owned by many people. Her husband owns a small portion, less than 1%. meh-hisabness (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There are so many typos and grammatical errors throughout this article.

Can you please proofread this article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that professionals use. It should be better written. Jpdstl071988 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please proofread this article? Jpdstl071988 (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Jpdstl071988, vague complaints are not helpful. This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, and is not a forum for discussing your personal feelings about the article. If you have suggestions to make, then state them specifically, please. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

The page states that former Senator Loeffler "assumed office on January 6, 2020." However, as the election results have demonstrated, she was defeated by Raphael Warnock. See source here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/05/us/elections/results-georgia-senate-runoff-loeffler-warnock.html 68.134.210.213 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Loeffler is still in office. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The storming happened on Jan 6, 2021 and not 2020

Need to change the last line of introductory para Modiherin (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Term of service at U.S. Senator

As I understand it, Loeffler remains a U.S. Senator until Rafael Warnock is actually sworn in and assumed office. See this point explicitly addressed in this USA Today article [7]. Please wait until Warnock's swearing in with changing "serving" to "served" in the lede. Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Warnock is scheduled to be sworn in at 4:30 PM EST, Jan. 20. JTRH (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Avoid use of the catch phrase "claim[s, ed] without evidence"

The left leaning media has adopted the verbal tic and / or written catch phrase "claimed without evidence" when wishing to discredit an argument made by a conservative source. Wikipedia should not indulge that verbiage. It is a cheap method of avoiding having to make an effort to evaluate evidence.

The use here was: Loeffler and the other U.S. Senator from Georgia, David Perdue, claimed without evidence that there had been "failures" in the election, 2602:306:3AC7:57C0:8D74:93A3:2217:5A60 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

But there's no evidence of "failures". We follow the WP:RS, which have pointed out that their allegations are false. Not saying so fails to provide accurate information to our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

One basis of the dispute is poor verification of signatures on mail-in ballots. You may personally believe the assurances of various "authorities" that the verification was adequate. Others may not. In either case, it was a dispute settled by the authority of the Georgia Secretary of State rather that the Judiciary or some (credibly) disinterested party. So, again, the Senator made a claim, which rested on a potential failure mode that was poorly investigated. Lack of evidence, in idiomatic English, appears to exclude a rational basis, at all, for the claim. You are abusing idiomatic English - as has become commonplace in the general circulation media - to editorialize. The Senator made a counterclaim which can be allowed to stand alone as a claim. If there is a specific refutation, then that ought to be cited rather than the Orwellian "claimed without evidence." IMHO. 23:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)2602:306:3AC7:57C0:8D74:93A3:2217:5A60 (talk)

Net worth

I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as the parameter has now been deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)