Talk:Kay Hagan

Copyright Violation
The March 8, 2008 revision of this article by Kalliope O'Donnell (Talk | contribs) was taken, wholesale, from http://www.kayhagan.com/about/about-kay/ without any revision, NPOV considerations or, even verb tense/agreement alterations. I have excised the changes, as they were nothing but campaign fodder. Kalliope is welcome to reintroduce the info, so long as it is neutral, original and well-cited. — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
I am requesting that this article is renamed Kay Hagan, which would simply remove the middle initial from the title. While her state senate page lists the middle initial, Hagan does not use it on her campaign site or in her commercials. The article on Elizabeth Dole is named similarly, and I feel that this rename hews more closely to Wikipedia's common names policy than its current name. Bridger (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This request also conforms to the conventions set up in Naming_conventions_(people) especially Naming_conventions_(people) H acton (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture Removal Vandalism
There have been six edits in two weeks which removed the picture of Kay Hagan that I uploaded. The license for the picture has not been challenged, and most of the edits have been by non-registered users. Five of them gave no explanation for the picture removal, but the most recent edit said the picture was "sabotaged" (although there hadn't been any edits of the image since September 23). What is going on here? Is this enough to warrant semi-protection of the page until after Election Day? Bridger (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On my machine, the picture looks BLACK. It's either a negative, or someone somehow is vandalizing it to make her look like a monster. I don't know what's causing the problem; maybe there's a problem with the picture, or maybe there's a problem with the renderer. Ngchen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a renderer problem, maybe there are issues with the automatic resizing. I'll see what I can do to fix it. Ngchen (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Firefox renders the shrunk version as the "monster," while IE simply does not display it, shrunk or not shrunk. Ngchen (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to accuse you of vandalism...and thanks for telling me about the rendering problem with the picture. I was only left to guess after several edits simply removed the picture without an explanation. I didn't realize there was a rendering problem, since it showed up on my computer fine (with Firefox). I have uploaded a smaller version of the picture in its place. I've tested it on two computers, both using Firefox and IE, and it seems to have done the trick. Please let me know if you're still having a problem viewing it. Bridger (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see there's still a problem. I'll see what I can do. Bridger (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A previous version you had works! As such I reverted to it. The "monster" image showed up on Mac Safari 2.0.4. Ngchen (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Thanks again for letting me know there was a problem. Bridger (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hagan Win
Hagan, as of 9:49 ET 11/4/08, is officially the winner of the NC U.S Senate election. This is after the Dole concession speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.102.254.33 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthday
I note that there are two different birthdays listed, November 18, 1951, and May 26, 1953. Which is it?


 * Yeah, seriously. Which one is it?? Pvegeta (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/11/04/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-kay-hagan.html says May 26, 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.234.148 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Political positions
A major omission from the article- what are her political positions? Did she manage to get through an entire campaign without stating any? Please add if anyone can find. What is her position on a GM/Ford/Chrysler bailout? I saw that she appeared with Harry Reid yesterday at a press conference in DC on that subject.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Overtime pay
I have reworded the insertion to make it more neutral. An IP added this section and keeps adding more to it. I reverted one edit that added info that was not in the citations provided. The IP simply reverted it back. Per WP:BRD, it should have been discussed here, so I am starting a section about it. Should this even be in here? Is it really notable enough now especially since it is only in committee currently. Hasn't really been voted on yet. It appears almost that the IP is using it as a soapbox. I'm not going to edit war, so please give input here. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes. I calculated the hourly rate from the weekly rate as given (I'm not sure how to cite this...Title 29, Part 541, proposed amendment 1747 ? It stated that the rate at which a person working with computers will become exempt is $455 for a 40 hour week. This is actually $11.375 per hour. The previous rate, which was left in the wording of the act, was $27.63 per hour. I am describing in detail what Kay Hagan has proposed. The actual wording of the changed act is...."who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.... I have removed the word "subtle" although I believe it to be an accurate description of the change. User:Aldridge/unregistered 23:40, 13 December 2011
 * I see what you are wanting to say, but disagree with your conclusion. This CPU act is primarily about hourly wage employees. After reading the existing laws (FLSA section 13(a)(1) and section 13(a)(17)) you will see that salaried employees at the $455 level are already exempt under the overtime exceptions. This bill would not change that and would only bring CFR 29 Part 541 in line with FLSA. The hourly (not salary) wage limit would remain at $27.63.
 * I found another article about it and it supports the $ 27.63 figure. Does not say anything about salaried employees at $11.375 level.
 * The whole issue is moot, though, because without a reliable source which states your conclusion that you added (that it reduces the wage limit to $ 12/hr), it is synthesis or original research by Wikipedia standards. Find a reliable source that states your conclusion and it can go back in, otherwise, it is purely soapboxing to try to alert more people to this issue which the committee hasn't even done anything with yet. I am taking it out because it is incorrect, misleading and POV/SYNTH. Please don't add it back without a source that states what you propose. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

>I agree that there wouldn't be a change of rate, I was mistaken earlier. I have taken out all mention of the rate at which programmers are paid since it isn't affected by the proposed change. The change is in the extension of the categories of computer workers who would be considered exempt. (talk) 5:10 18 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.118.103 (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Godless Ad
This section is currently the largest in the article by far. This seems inappropriate, particularly given the relative significance of the topic. Any objections to removing the third paragraph of the section?CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The whole section on her 2008 election is very well written and just because the rest of the article needs improving and updating, there's no need to go around pruning the one good section. Tiller54 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is that currently the article gives WP:undue weight to a campaign ad run by her opponent in the 2008 election. In the context of her bio, it doesn't seem significant enough to warrant such prominence.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting record
This edit regarding Hagan's voting record was reverted as "unsourced POV". The content is well-sourced (WRAL, National Journal) and neutrally worded.CFredkin (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you just purposely link to your edit adding that portion and not the removal in order to mischaracterize the reason it was removed? The removal was in two part as described in the edit summary(Removed unsourced POV + 51st most liberal senator isn't notable, whereas 'most moderate' may be -take it to Talk). That would be a pretty dishonest way to start a Talk page discussion. The 'unsourced POV' was the anon ip edit, and the '51st most liberal Senator isn't notable' was addressing yours. And no, it most defintely was not neutrally worded. Unless you mean from an oppo research POV. On your previous attempt to add the material I told you the article states it's 'technically true', while it's more straightforward to state she is the most moderate Senator. The 'context' is explained in the article you linked to. It's a lot better to discuss these types of edits and try to use the Talk page than to keep reinserting the same material again and again. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)