Talk:Lindsey Graham

New York Times reported today
"Georgia Panel Recommended Charging Lindsey Graham in Trump Case

A special grand jury made the recommendation last year after hearing from dozens of witnesses on whether Donald J. Trump and his allies interfered in the 2020 election."

"Officials with the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, declined to comment on Friday. But the report provides a window on the office’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion, with prosecutors seemingly concluding that some of the people named in the report had committed acts that would be too difficult to prove were criminal."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/georgia-special-grand-jury-lindsey-graham-trump.html


 * Why is there no mention of this in the current version of this article? That's not very encyclopedic, is it? Here's some more information about it: https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1198420814/georgia-special-grand-jury-report-trump-fulton-county-lindsey-graham 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One, see WP:NOTNEWS, two, you are calling the lack of immediate inclusion of something that was first in the press in the last 24 hours "not encyclopedic" on a user edited and supported encyclopedia. This isn't being run by bots or an AI. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Ketanji Brown Jackson SCOTUS vote inclusion
I suspect... Matthew.kowal and  AlsoWukai, edit-warring in the Senate cloakroom with the missing paisley tie! If you have a Clue as to whether the text regarding the SCOTUS vote should be included or not, please show your cards. BBQboffin (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How the Senator voted for a SCOTUS nominee is relevant information for the Supreme Court nominations section of this entry. The details pertaining to that vote are also relevant. Matthew.kowal (talk) 21:25:40 UTC, 20 July 2022
 * Eh. Maybe the fact he didn't vote for the nomination, but not the whole "no tie/voted from cloakroom" thing imo. Don't think it passes the WP:10YEARTEST at all. Also please cease the edit warring. The cycle is WP:BRD - you edited boldly, you were reverted, now you discuss. You don't revert to your preferred version when the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The "no tie/voted from cloakroom" pertains to his vote since he did not attend the formal voting due to his negligence of Senate rules. I maintain that how a Senator voted for a Supreme Court Nominee is indeed relevant info, particularly since this was the first black female Supreme Court Justice. Matthew.kowal (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can continue to maintain that, but forcing through your own version of the article without consensus and continually reverting is in violation of Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines, per WP:3RR. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am editing the article in include relevant info regarding the Senator's attendance and vote for a historic supreme court nomination. The onus should be on those who would remove or otherwise hide said info. Matthew.kowal (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:ONUS is part of Wikipedia policy, regardless of whether you think it should or should not be. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So to clarify, do you or do you not think that the Senator's vote for a historic SCOTUS nominee is relevant to his record? Matthew.kowal (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, yes, I think the vote is relevant, though I'm not sure about the scope to include given most senators don't have references to who they voted for or against on their pages (apart from the blockage of Merrick Garland on some pages, which was a different situation). The cloakroom and lack of tie though, definitely not. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * His appearance is literally tied to how he cast his vote. I feel both his appearance, and his vote on this historic nomination, speak to his lack to candor and respect for the SCOTUS nomination of a black female. Given that there is an existing section in this entry regarding Supreme Court nominees, and the Senators blockage of Garland and further politicization of SCOTUS, I feel it quite relevant to include this info. It also helps to paint a picture of Graham's priorities following his time as chair of the Judiciary Committee. Matthew.kowal (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, there's a section on it, but I note that aside from the Garland 180 (which is included on a few other pages such as that of Marco Rubio) it only includes the nominees he's voted Yes on and bucked the trend of the party in minority opposing the majority's nominations - not even noting his vote for Kavanaugh or ACB, whose nomination he chaired! As thus, I'm still skeptical on inclusion. Also the thing about his vote supposedly being targeted about the fact it was a Black female nominee would really need to be backed up by a reliable source, otherwise it becomes WP:SYNTHESIS, bordering on WP:OR. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with ser!. AlsoWukai (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on subsection "Russia"
On the subsection Russia, I propose to add these paragraphs:


 * On May 26, 2023, the Office of the President of Ukraine has released an edited video showing Graham talking with the Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with Graham remarking that "the Russians are dying" and then following up that the American military assistance to Ukraine was the "best money we've ever spent". In response, on May 28 the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev remarked that the "old fool" Graham has suggested that American money was spent on murdering Russians, which Graham have dismissed. Subsequently, the Office of the President of Ukraine has released the unedited version of the interview clarifying that Graham's two remarks are unrelated.


 * On May 29, 2023, the Russian Interior Ministry issued an arrest warrant against Graham after the Security Council of Russia has ordered an investigation on his comments. While the Russian government has previously declared high-ranking officials from the US persona non grata, Graham's case was one of the rarer cases where the Russian government have sought to arrest instead of simply barring them from entering Russia.

I think that some copyediting are needed, but otherwise this is the meat of my proposal - 49.147.67.216 (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As you suggested, some copyediting was done and other small changes were made. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Arrest warrant
Since Russia issued an actual warrant for Graham's arrest, does that mean we should add Category:Fugitives wanted by Russia? Thoughts? Johndavies837 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * For someone to be a fugitive, they either need to have escaped from government custody or be in hiding (such as a bank robber on the run). Graham is neither, of course. BBQboffin (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023
For either the Iran or Israel/Palestine section, I would recommend adding this: During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, I would recommend adding this: During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Graham called for the United States to threaten Iran's oil infrastructure if the conflict escalated. In a interview by CNN, he called for the US and Israel to bomb Iran even if it wasn't involved in the Hamas attack on Israel. He also stated that the US would win a war with Iran if it broke out. 217.180.201.161 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * done. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023
change ranking member of budget committee 2021-present to empty. he is the ranking member on the judiciary committee. Bryan.dfb (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ House Blaster talk 13:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)