Talk:Maria Cantwell/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"IMBRA"

Michaellovesnyc 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc Why is any discussion of IMBRA considered POV? She "proudly" sponsored the bill and it has caused massive delays in processing visas and will undoubtedly increase violence against women worldwide. If women are not allowed to come to the United States where abuse is lower than in other countries, more of them will be abused and killed. This is a fact. Why is this POV? And why was it deleted without discussion? This is a violation of wikipedia policy

Well your additions contain large amounts of POV about the legislation and the Senator. It looks like you have been involved in a long edit war on the article Mail-order bride this is not really the place for ranting and edit fights about this topic.--8bitJake 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless a Senator authorized a bill, it's not particularly newsworthy that he/she was a sponsor. Some Senate bills have dozens of co-sponsors. Further, what a bill looks like when initially sponsored, and what it looks like when finally passed, can be very different things - particularly since Cantwell is and always has been in the minority (party) in the Senate (and all of Congress, for that matter). And finally, the administration and execution of a law - by the Executive Branch - is hugely important to whether the bill turns out to do good, bad, or somewhere inbetween. Let's be real about how much power one Senator out of 100 actually has. And on how many bills he/she votes on during a year. John Broughton 03:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You can add information about IMBRA to the article, but you have to comply with WP:NPOV. What you added was completely biased, unsourced, and inflammatory. All of which are against wikipedia guidelines. --Bobblehead 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed update discussion

Here's what Michaellovesnyc is proposing to insert:

Cantwell sponsored a bill that officially declared that American men are abusers Bill Declares American Men Abusers. The bill was in response to three murders of mail order brides in the past 20 years in contrast to about 1500 murders a year of spouses in general in the United States Homicide trends in the U.S. and an estimated 14,000 murders of wives a year in Russia 14,000 Russian Wives in Russia Killed Eacxh Year. Two lawsuits have been filed and a temporary restraining order has been granted European Connections vs. Gonzales. In violation of the restraining order, USCIS has implemented the new requirements and Cantwell's law has successfully blocked 10,000 couples from getting married Marriages Put on Hold Because of Cantwell Bill. Cantwell responded by blaming the immigration service for the problem caused by her bill. "Security and safety should be their top consideration but their long visa process delays are putting a lot of people's lives on hold," Cantwell said in a statement Homeland Security paperwork glitch delays thousands of weddings.

So, start editting, discussing against insertion, etc. --Bobblehead 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with the first sentence. Does the bill actually declare American men to be abusers? Can someone point to text in the bill itself to support that accusation? Otherwise, it's POV. -- Sholom 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm having issues reconciling most of the sentences. First off, while the bill was initially sponsored by Cantwell, it is no longer her bill as it was amended and altered by her fellow Congressmen and in the end was approved by Congress making it "Congress's bill". The second sentence does not appear to be germaine to the issue at hand as the bill is not attempting to deal with spousal abuse in the US or Russia. The third sentence seems to be a statement of fact. The fourth sentence is sourced by an article that makes no mention of the paperwork glitch being in violation of a restraining order. The fifth sentence appears to be a statement of fact, but seems unfairly critical of Cantwell as the sources provided are blaming Homeland Security, not the bill, for the problem. The bill initiated the required changes, but Homeland Security fubar'd the required changes and is responsible for the hold up... --Bobblehead 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

More research. For starters I found:

Joe Biden was the sponsor, there were 58 co-sponsors (Cantwell among them) in the Senate, and it passed unanimously [1]. So why is this being blamed on Cantwell?
It passed the House 415-4. [2]. So why is this being blamed on Cantwell?
the domain of imbra.org, which is the source of some of the above, and rants against Cantwell, is owned by "michaellovesnyc@aol.com"
the web site has ads on it from a group called "International Love Affair", which specializes in mail order brides

-- Sholom 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A minor clarification. Joe Biden is the sponsor for S. 1197: Violence Against Women Act of 2005. Cantwell was the sponsor for International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005. IMBRA was rolled into VAWA. That happens a lot with bills on the Senate floor. As an example, check out the Senate Immigration Reform Bill it has a large number of acts rolled into it. However, doesn't change the fact that the Act was approved by the Senate unanimously. --Bobblehead 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I see no reason to include Michaellovesnyc's updates. The Act does not declare all American males as abusers. The closest it gets is "Of abusive United States citizen or legal resident spouses," which clearly defines the impacted citizens/legal residents to those that are abusive and does not indicate the gender of those citizens aside from an earlier finding that a majority of those that use mail-order services are male. However the inference that the bill declares all American males abusive fails the logic test. The second sentence is original research and is not germaine to the topic at hand. The rest deals with the lawsuit brought against the act, but considering the contention of the lawsuit is that the case is a violation of 1st (Freedom of Speech, etc) and 5th amendment (double jeopardy) rights and not libel, I'm not sure how that supports the previously made claims.. Basically, the act is only controversial to a very small minority (which do not need to be included according to NPOV:undue weight guidelines) and aside from Cantwell sponsoring the Act and the lawsuit, it's not exactly noteworthy. --Bobblehead 20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Michaellovesnyc 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc And where do you get that its an "very small minority" ?

I didn't write the "declaration that men are abusers" it was written by a feminist writer and I provided the link to that.

Cantwell herself bragged about her sponsoship of the bill (up until 10,000 people's marriages were destoyed, but oh well; too bad for them); Check out Gary Bala's Blog and you will see a picture of her smiling as that idiot (I voted for him twice and now even I admit the man is a moron)Bush signs the bill.

As far as the vote, It passed by a voice vote with no debate as a reenactment of VAWA a few days before Christmas; no one even knew it was in there, and Bush signed it because, as is universally accepted, he is an idiot. The IMB's were never even given an opportunity to discuss it and none of them were not even aware of it until a month later !!! So don't go thinking this thing was supported by Congress. Cantwell shoved this thing down the throats of innocent people and disgusied it as part of VAWA; its funny now she has her backers pretending she had nothing to do with it ! At least her opponent has 10,000 more backers !

"Democrat in Name Only"

68.74.8.121 has repeatedly altered the introductory paragraph of the article to describe Cantwell as a DINO. I feel that this statement is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, and would like to request the comments of others on the issue.

I quite agree, and have reverted it myself. Personally, I'm not too happy with her recent vote, but that doesn't translate into a slander label being applied in her article. Now if she begins to be referred to this way by the media, mention of this would deserve notice. Right now, it's just one person's opinion, and has no place here. Ocicat 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's comments as POV a few times, but as NPOV problems are not vandalism, I'm already broken WP:3RR in doing so, and in any case an edit war isn't going to solve anything. Brendan 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the debate on if she is or is not a DINO is a valid discussion but I think it should be in the US senate section. --8bitJake 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So, your current edit says "Critics of her Senate voting record have accused her of being a Democrat In Name Only." Outside of Wikipedia, exactly which critics are these? This falls (I think) under NPOV and/or Original Research. Ocicat 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

by "Critics of her Senate voting record" I mean progressive members of the Washington State Democratic Party and the Democratic netroots that has been following the filibuster. --8bitJake 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then which member of that group called her a "DINO"? I know the're unhappy, but that alone does not justify the term. Mentioning that the vote caused conflict with members of her party would be fine and true. Ocicat 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted several highly POV or all-caps versions of the claim because it doesn't belong in the introduction. The current version and placement (under U.S. Senator) seems much more appropriate, although it could use a better source and more clearly identify the problem votes. --Ajdz 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

She's not DINO

I think she's not DINO, because:

She's 100% pro choice
She voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes
She's opposes the death penalty
She's rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record
She's opposes absolute right to gun ownership
She voted NO on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act
She voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice and NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two Bush nominnes
She's opposes privatizing Social Security

She's one of the more liberal senators. I like her ;)

Hey unsigned comment. When she voted with the Republicans to end the filibuster of Alito she helped end Choice in America. --8bitJake 15:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget that she voted for partial birth abortion and against making it a crime to injure a fetus; she is a Democratic Poster Child; what more do you want her to do? Blow up an infant ward? Michaellovesnyc 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PACs

Please clarify the PAC pledge and current fundraising. The source which is used to say that Cantwell is not accepting PAC money says PACs have reported giving her $34,925 for 2005-2006. That certainly doesn't look like nothing and the source itself is ambiguous. --Ajdz 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy to clarify. I think a careful reading of the source itself actually does explain it, but here is the deal. The Center For Responsive Politics (CRP/Opensecrets.org) has put up this note to explain FEC (Federal Election Commission) reports for Cantwell and the other dozen or so members who don't take PAC money. The reason why has two important parts: 1)in theory PAC contributions are reported by both the PAC donating it AND by the candidate/campaign receiving it. Most of what is being listed under the notice on their page has been reported by the PACs, but not by the campaign. What often happens is that the campaign refuses the money, refunds it, returns the check (or some combo of the above), so they never deposit or accept the money. However, shoddy bookeeping on the PAC side of things means they never report "getting it back" or it being refused. Thus it "shows up" even though if you look at Maria Cantwell's FEC report (or some of the other folks who refuse PAC money) they don't take it and never reported getting it/depositing it/or they refunded it.

2) another FEC oddity is that you report different kinds of contributions (individuals, bank intererst, etc...) on different lines of the report (sort of like your tax return. One of these lines includes ALL other committees, including both PACs and other things. So some of what is in that listing on the web is from Maria's Senate colleagues campaign committees (i.e. John Kerry for Senate, Barak Obama for Senate (for example, not sure if those particualr examples apply), which aren't PACs at all (if Barak or Kerry's PAC had contributed (so called leadership PACs) that would be something else). But the FEC lumps it all together so when you have an automated database, it looks similar. Thats why Opensecrets adds that note. So everything that is there is either 1) something reported by the PAC that the Cantwell folks didn't accept and wasn't yet properly reported as refunded by the PAC or 2) from other Senate campaigns, which aren't PACs at all.

Hope that (overly technical) explanation is useful. I know the GOP likes to attack her on this, but its not factually true at all. --08:04, February 14, 2006 207.172.82.83

Washington United States Senate election, 2006

Advance notice: I plan to move a lot of the material on the 2006 election to the separate article on that race; the link to that separate article makes it easy to find such information. John Broughton 19:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Chadlupkes 20:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. It's not perfect, but it's good enough. John Broughton 16:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions/Requests

Does anyone know what religion she is? Just curious. Thanks!

RfC on Michaellovesnyc

I notice User:Michaellovesnyc has been trying to insert his point of view into the Maria Cantwell article. We've been trying to negotiate with him about Mail-order bride for months now. Some of the editors there have begun preparing a request for comment about his behaviour that will be submitted soon. The draft is here. Please feel free to edit it - add diffs that show disputed edits on this article and your attempts to negotiate with him. --Grace 22:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Overlook the Key Issues

If you've been following the financial crises in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, you know that big debts and deficits matter. Citizens experience no pain, whatsoever, as the debts accumulate, so it's easy to ignore the approaching storm; but when the hurricane arrives they find that it's the only issue that really matters. At the moment the interest on our federal debt is very small because interest rates are abnormally low, but abnormal conditions don't last. When interest rates rise, our interest tab will rise quickly and cause the deficit to widen alarmingly. Our debt and interest costs will spiral upward.

Thus, it's a bit disturbing that---while we know every little detail about Cantwell's elections, and there's a lengthy item about a meaningless statement she made regarding Amanda Knox---we are offered no insight into the Senator's positions on matters related to fiscal responsibility. Does she care about today's deficits, and the Congressional Budget Office's projections of future crisis? And if she does care, what steps would she take to close the gap? What votes has she taken that reveal her commitment to any statements she has made about discretionary spending, entitlement spending, and taxes? Jlcfa (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing problem

I think its problematic to begin assertions with phrases such as "Cantwell did support the view of many left-wing groups when..." (this in reference to her oppostion to the Roberts nomination) unless one can establish a causal link to the referenced group/position/event. That is, was Cantwell's vote the result of an effort to support/appease "left wing groups"? If so, document this. Otherwise we end up with an implication of causality when coincidence would be just as logical an inference. It's a common rhetorical device--"Bush echoes the actions of many neo-Nazis in eating breakfast cereal"--but hardly illustrative or fair. Is anyone else finding this more and more common in pages relating to active politicians (particularly those with a race this fall, 2006)? --Patchyreynolds 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Campaign Issues and Cantwell's Positions

The '2006 re-election section' contained no information about the campaign issues or Cantwell's positions. I have revised the section in an effort to correct this. I've left the passage about the debate controversy, although I'm not convinced this is consistent with NPOV or relevant to this section. What do others think? Jimmyhogg 23:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. I've been trying to improve some Washington State-related entries and I think you've improved this one dramatically. I'm not sure about the passage regarding the debates. I mean, given that the previous Senatorial race had the same number of debates as this one, I'm not sure this deserves a paragraph.Benzocane 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted this and the follow-on edits by Bobblehead and others for the following reasons:

A.) Sources are either uncited original research apparently based on her campaign site, or citations are press releases, a letter from Cantwell, a dead link, and a link to a house resolution, not a senate bill that she supposedly co-sponsored.

B.) Discussing actual issues that have been meat of the campaign, discussed in the media, seems more appropriate to this section, rather than listing information in a largely uncontested manner similar to a campaign website.

C.) The photograph had no copyright tag, and doesn't add to the article -- makes it look more like a campaign website.

D.) There was no reason for deleting the previous information that gave info about the historical narrative of the campaign thus far.

E.) Bobblehead, double standard? [3] The listing of Hong Tran's campaign issues was too objectionable to stand, even after multiple citations. I would have expected a different approach from you here.

Emcee 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What the heck do you mean the photo "had no copyright tag": I shot it today, I uploaded it at Commons, and it is absolutely clearly marked that I shot it and granted GFDL on it. As for "doesn't add to article": what the heck? The only other photo we have of her is an official portrait. This is a candid photo of her on the campaign trail. How does that not add to the article? - Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the tag. Still, it really doesn't add useful information to the article; we already know what she looks like from the main photograph (looking at the sites of other Senators as a standard, they generally don't have extra photos like this unless there's a specific event or incident worth documenting), and it's not particularly relevant to any specific issue or event in the 2006 campaign -- you can't even see anything besides her face and the side of somebody else's head. So it's basically redundant. A gratuitous "candid photo on the campaign trail" is generally something for a campaign website or TV ad. Emcee 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to seek at third opinion on that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with these reverts. If you want to add critical views of Cantwell's positions, fine; but you've erased those positions! I thought Jimmyhogg's edits were a significant improvement. I will not revert until I hear what others have to say.Benzocane 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted positions that were either poorly sourced, unsourced, or erroneously sourced, and that were about topics that have apparently had little to do with the actual substance of the campaign narrative thus far. Jimmyhogg also didn't just add info -- he deleted valid information that was already there. Emcee 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Emcee has deleted information about

Cantwell's activity as a legislator, including her positions on:

McCain/Feingold Act,
Clean Money, Clean Elections Act,
Pell Grants, Perkins Loans,
Pension Fairness and Full Disclosure Act

in order to replace it with information about:

Hypothetical elections in which Dino Rossi leads Cantwell
Republican electoral prospects in Washington
Bob Menendez' status as "most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate"
Mike McGavick's domination of a primary
Mike McGavick's criticism of Cantwell for "choosing to run a tightly controlled, closed campaign" in which, as in 2000 and 2004, two public debates occur
Two newspapers, a radio announcer, and McGavick's campaign spokesperson's criticisms of Cantwell's debate policy.

~~I don't see how Emcee's argument about sources holds water~~. Each of the deleted sections had sources. I don't see how a letter to congress or the ~~text of H.R. 2233~~ constitute "poor" or "erroneous" sources. The job of this encyclopedia entry is to provide information about its topic, Maria Cantwell. Emcee's edits have compromised the entry in a way that seems disruptive to me.

Cyrusc 11:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry--Emcee has a valid point about the H.R. 2233 link. I replaced this link with the relevant Senate bill. Cyrusc 12:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with most of Emcee's edits, I do I think that some of the discussion about Rossi and the fact that Cantwell was considered vulnerable early because of her support for Iraq is important historically. Sabato, who Emcee quoted, is a respected source. I will also note a CQPolitics.com article here from Jan 2006, which opens with Restiveness within the liberal Democratic voting base appears a fresh complication for Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, who faces a serious Republican challenge in her bid this year for a second term. Cantwell’s vote in favor of the 2002 Iraq war resolution, which authorized President Bush to employ military force, is the issue hindering Cantwell’s efforts to maintain party unity — a must in Washington, a Democratic-leaning but politically competitive state. It's a good story arc: from appearing vulnerable both within and outside the party, pulling ahead, winning the primary, her seat still being considered a potential pick-up for the GOP, and her pulling ahead in the pre-general election polling. But we lose half the story if we ignore the first part. -- Sholom 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Is there a way to include this information without deleting what has been supplied by Jimmyhogg and Bobblehead? Cyrusc 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

CyrusC, I think your list was a mischaracterization of my edits. I was restoring the original info and removing recently-added material that was largely based off of poorly sourced or unsourced material. I was not "replacing" A with B; Jimmyhogg had replaced A with B, and I was restoring A. Some people take the attitude that once the election moves forward in time, historical information about how the campaign was viewed should be deleted... especially if it could be read as negative information about the candidate. The things that you re-reverted are not about the campaign -- they are (at best) about things that she has done as a Senator. There is a difference. These are not "campaign issues" as shown by any substantial coverage in the media or debate between the candidates. They may be listed on her campaign website or in old press releases from groups that were involved or sympathetic with those particular issues, but that doesn't mean that anybody views them as meat of the campaign. If people want to know exactly what Cantwell's public stance on any specific issue is, they can go to her campaign website; this is a biographical article, and a section about the 2006 re-election campaign, so there should be more of an attempt to provide material and sources that are less biased and actually following the campaign.

I am going to re-revert (including the photograph that you replaced, even though the person who added it in the first place has agreed to leave it out now). Let's try to come to consensus in the discussion that we've been having here before jumping into an edit war.Emcee 15:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Emcee, I apologize if I have mischaracterized your edits. My choice of examples may have been colored by my frustration at the disappearance of what I felt were improvements to this article. I also apologize for re-posting the photo. I did not realize that my revert would cause it to reappear.

I agree that we should come to a consensus before making edits. Since the revert that made our lack of consensus apparent in the first place is one of those edits, and since our disagreement centers as much on what should be deleted as on what should be included, it seems to me that the fair and civil thing to do is to allow both sides' contributions to stand until consensus is reached. Otherwise, the entry will emphatically not reflect consensus. The alternative is to allow both parties to delete freely, in which case the controversial section simply disappears. I think that the former option contributes more to the goals of the encyclopedia, and I have implemented it.

I continue to disagree with your edits. I don't believe that any of the first three paragraphs of the section as it now stands are germane to the entry, although I recognize Sholom's point that the narrative of the campaign deserves to be addressed. I also think that the phrases "heavy criticism" and "newspapers across the state" are POV at best. Cyrusc 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

References -- oy! But why were all the references (i.e., <ref>) removed! Can somebody put them back in please?! -- Sholom 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Emcee: you're right we should avoid an edit war. But several people all agree that the substantive campagin issues added by jimmyhogg are an improvement and your initial edit and revert are clearly AGAINST the consensus thus far. Again, if you believe there is some sort of NPOV violation, please make edits that correct the POV. How are the positions that a candidate basis her candidacy on somehow not 'campaign issues'?Benzocane 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the support for my original edit. It was emphatically not my intention to initiate an edit war, and I'm glad to see that concensus appears to be building. I simply felt that a subsection of the Cantwell page entitled, '2006 re-election campaign,' which was destitute of many of her campaign issues or political positions was severely lacking in essential content. I have to say that I am quite perplexed with Emcee's position on this matter, when Emcee states that my edit (and the recent re-vert) were, "(at best) about things that she has done as a Senator. There is a difference. These are not 'campaign issues' as shown by any substantial coverage in the media or debate between the candidates." I must admit that I fail to see how what Cantwell 'has done as a Senator' is not a campaign issue. I'm also not entirely sure what the problem was with my sourcing. I welcome constructive criticism on this front. Additionally, I believe that much of my original sourcing challenges the claim that the issues discussed in my edit have been absent from the media coverage of the campaign.

On a technical note, I've tried to replace the references that Sholom has noted as missing. I'm having some difficulty properly relocating the links to the 'References' section at the bottom of the page. I'm able to create a separate section, but for some reason am having trouble merging the two. Perhaps someone can help with this. Jimmyhogg 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what's happening with the reference links. Many of the links involve a redirect to the source itself, whereas the references from the '2006 re-election campaign' link to the 'References' section at the bottom of the WP. It seems like a uniform sourcing policy should be agreed on for the page. Since the majority of the article's footnotes link directly to their external sources, I'm going to revise the '2006 re-election campaign' footnotes, so that they link externally as well, and then I'll do away with the references section. Jimmyhogg 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I did the opposite, actually. Even if we are doing external links, you have to reference the sources in a reference section.(See WP:Cite) Generally want to use a more formal method than what I did, but I didn't want to spend a lot of time updating the reference links only to have them disappear if/when someone comes through and reverts the 2006 election section. ;) --Bobblehead 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot of debate here. My two cents are with the recent support for the re-vert. I think that Cantwell's past-campaign activity is (or should be) well within the purview of a section on her current re-election campagin. Sure, this is a biographical page, but if it's going to include a section on her current campaign (which it surely should), then this is relevant information. While we're at it, I'm going to second (or third or fourth, it seems) CyrusC's complaint that some of the phrasing in the first three paragraphs may violate NPOV (see CyrusC's talk post, above, from 24 October 2006). In light of this, I've made some revisions to the first three paragraphs of the '2006 re-election campaign' section. Beyond removing the NPOV-questionable phrases, I'm (a) removing an unsourced claim about Rossi being asked to run against Cantwell; (b) updating Sabato's post-primary quotation with a recent poll; (c) adding information about Cantwell's debates in her 2000 campaign. Henrystreet 19:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we be a bit slower with the cutting? "Everyone knows" that Rossi was being asked to run against Cantwell. He had just lost a close race, and Cantwell seemed vulnerable at the time. Rather than delete it so quickly (or is it too late?), why not look for a reference? Indeed, in about 60 seconds I found the following: Powerful Republicans in Washington, D.C. — from the White House on down — are pushing Rossi to run against Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell next year. But back here in this Washington, some of Rossi's biggest allies want him to stay home and take another shot at becoming governor in 2008. in this Seattle Times article. As I said above, it makes for a great story arc. -- Sholom 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored the debate controversy portion and added a couple of citations. I also edited the "issues" section of this segment to match the citations that were given. Note that _all_ of the sources given were either self-published (Cantwell's campaign site, or press releases on the web sites of various politically-involved organizations), which have to be treated with caution, according to Wikipedia policy per WP:RS (see: online and self-published sources)[4]; or else they were actual documents (the letter from the Senators, and the text of the Senate bill) -- which makes any kind of commentary that is not supported by an additional source original research. (Especially where the letter about the Perkins Loan Program was used to support claims about Pell Grants and social security privatization).

Back to the self-published sources: one of our editors (Bobblehead) has even argued on another page that campaign web sites are, by definition, unreliable sources that should not be used as a basis for WP material -- I don't necessarily agree with this stance, but I would like to hear him chip in on this and explain why the circumstances are any different here, or else why he has changed his mind on this topic. These sources do, however, benefit from both direct attribution in the article itself, and also by second sources (preferably more neutral). Just going through the list and writing "Cantwell's supporters say" is not adequate -- especially when the sayings are not supported even in the partisan citations.

Note that the citations are also (except for one) quite old -- either from mid-2005, or one as far back as 2001. It's difficult to argue that these citations have anything to do with the current campaign dialogue and controversies. My argument is not that the material can't be anywhere in the article, but that this is not the right section for it. You can put information about her campaign finance reform stuff in the "U.S. Senator" section; ANWR is already there; etc. etc. But this section should be talking about the CAMPAIGN.

I also want to remind folks that this is an article section _about_ an election, and not an election itself -- i.e., we're not just voting here. Just saying you like Jimmyhogg's edits doesn't help. Nobody has really addressed my main point, which is: how and where do these issues listed on her campaign page factor significantly into what the newspapers and the voters are talking about? Emcee 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooo. I've been called out. My stance on the use of campaign sites has been slightly modified following a visit to WP:C&E where I inquired about the use of campaign sites as sources [5] and was corrected.[6] Basically, campaign sites are reliable only for non-controversial topics about the candidate only (such as biography, issue stances that aren't disputed), but should only be used as a supporting source to a reliable source for controversial topics (such as issue stances that are disputed). They shouldn't be used as sources in reference to their opponents (you wouldn't use the Cantwell campaign site as a source in reference to McGavick's stance on issues).--Bobblehead 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's list some of the things the newspapers and voters are talking about and discuss how best to incorporate them. I cited the LOC BCRA entry for the cosponsorship claim. I'll reread the WP:RS business--but surely pointing out Cantwell's name on the bill's list of cosponsors, or linking to her campaign website to support a claim about that campaign's stated goals doesn't constitute "original research," does it? Cyrusc 12:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Emcee's edits suggest a violation of NPOV. Here's why:

There seems to be a definite slant to the cuts and additions by Emcee, all increasing negative portrayals and decreasing positive portrayals of this candidate.
There is now more coverage of the debate issue (two substantial and largely redundant paragraphs) than any other topic--in fact more than several other sections entirely. Is this issue really the single most important issue regarding Cantwell and her race?
Talk about reaching consensus followed by edits that seem to be against the established consensus seem disingenuous.
One of the newspaper citations (Seattle PI), which is cited as showing that Cantwell has been 'chastised' for refusing more debates, actually just covers the debate controversy in a neutral way.
Things like cosponsered legislation are clearly part of the established record and is reasonable to include. Same for statements describing political goals taken from the candidate's own official material. Where else would it come from? Why would we take it from "what the newspapers and the voters are talking about"? Isn't the public perception a separate issue from stated campaign and political goals?

I'm not trying to be overly aggressive here, but I've been following the debate without commenting for a while now, and it really doesn't seem like we're making progress. SlipperyN 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlipperyN's concern about a potential NPOV violation in Emcee's recent edits. I feel that enough has been said on the sourcing questions, so I'll pass over that. My primary concern is the new addition of a second paragraph concerning the 'debate issue.' This addition seems at once both redundant and off topic. On the one hand, mention of the critical press and response that Cantwell has received for her debates with McGavick is already included in the paragraph above. On the other, the discussion of Cantwell's 2000 debate with Groton and Murray's 2004 debate with Nethercutt, especially the latter, seem unnecessary. Emcee has been concerned about the inclusion of content that is not related to the re-election campaign. Patty Murray's debate record seems like an exemplar of unrelated content--unless, of course, the idea behind their inclusion is to suggest that Cantwell is particularly afraid to debate McGavick. This suggestion, itself, seems to be dubious when it comes to NPOV, but I leave this for others to decide. The redunancy-point remains insofar as Cantwell's 'fear' of McGavick is already suggested in the paragraph above. On the basis of these redundancy and NPOV concerns, I am removing the paragraph in question from the section. Jimmyhogg 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Addressing SlipperyN's comments:

) The intent of many of my edits is to eliminate what are, in my view, NPOV problems, and unsupported material. You say that my edits are "increasing negative portrayals and decreasing positive portrayals of the candidate." If the current portrayal is a POV that is slanted improperly in the positive direction, then yes, my edits may have that effect. But I am, in good faith, attempting to improve the article and make it more neutral. I hope all of you are as well.
) I agree that those two paragraphs are largely redundant. I'm not sure how they came to be about -- probably one was a slightly modified version of something that was chopped, the other was probably somebody (maybe me) restoring the original paragraph. As it turns out, the one that JimmyHogg deleted actually appears to be the original paragraph, which is not especially new -- from an Oct 14th edit.[7] I will try to combine this deleted paragraph with the remaining one and eliminate any redundancies.
) I agree that the P-I article[8] attempts to take a neutral stance on the debate controversy -- which makes it a good citation for this section. It does, however, support that she has recieved significant criticism across the state -- for example where it says: "But criticism of Cantwell has mounted. Olympia and Yakima newspaper editorials have chided her for refusing more debates. The Daily Olympian asked, "What is Maria afraid of?"'. This article reports on the criticisms of a Spokane radio commentator; Spokane, Yakima, Olympia -- pretty much statewide criticism in the major media.
) Cosponsored legislation is perfectly legitimate material to put in the article as a whole, as I have said. It (and sourced commentary about its purpose, effect, and relevance) probably belongs under the "US Senator" subheading in this article, however, unless you can add SOURCED MATERIAL relating it to the campaign, in which case it is reasonable to include it in the campaign section. This is the point that nobody is addressing -- WHO is talking about the Perkins loan program, the 2001 Clean Money, Clean Campaigns act, etc. etc. IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE? I'm not saying that nobody is talking about it, I'm saying that no reliable sources are being cited showing that these are material to the actual campaign. YES -- public perception IS different from stated campaign and political goals; if you read my previous discussion, I've already agreed to this material (the list of issues from the campaign site) for what it supports directly, nothing more nothing less, and with specific attribution in the article itself, letting the reader know that it is coming from Cantwell's self-published campaign site (without having to check a footnote or follow a link).
) It does seem a bit aggressive to lead off with "violations" of NPOV, but I won't make an issue of it. I'm not "violating" anything, just contributing to Wikipedia like the rest of these editors.

Emcee 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Emcee, go ahead and list some of the campaign issues people are really "talking about" and we'll figure out how to improve the article. I don't see how it contributes to our discussion simply to repeat criticism of facts the other participants in this forum seem to agree on.

I don't think it's 'aggressive' to continue mentioning POV in connection with your edits. I think your most recent edit has done nothing other than introduce POV, particularly with this line: "Newspapers across the state have chastised her debate approach, calling it 'unacceptable' and 'simply not fair.'"

Let me point out:

This sentence restates the information of the previous sentence, then introduces three pejoratives and the unwarranted intensifier "across the state." Yakima (dead link, by the way) and Olympia are "across the state" only in the most trivial sense.
As SlipperyN observed just yesterday, the single live link you cite does not substantiate this intensified/pejorated version of the preceding sentence.
The several intensifying "onlys" that you added later on in the paragraph compromise both the sense and the flow of the prose, in my opinion.

You may consider my decision to revert 'aggressive.' Let me address that in advance. If you want to improve the article, do so in a way consistent with your positions on the Talk page. Bring in sources, strengthen NPOV, and above all, introduce the "real issues" the absence of which you claim is the outstanding weakness of the article.

I'm trying to be courteous by justifying my edits on the Talk page, but I want to point out how counterproductive it is. It seems to me you're bringing a lot more substance to the debate than to the entry itself. To be frank, I feel that your combination of 1) detailed, critical Talk contributions about "real issues," responsible sourcing, and NPOV, with 2) repetitive edits that precisely counteract the spirit of those Talk contributions, is exploiting the cooperative nature of this project in order to diminish the quality of an entry you happen to dislike.

I welcome your disagreement--the debate, the unanimous struggle for consensus is the most exciting thing about this community. For the record, however, I find the way you enforce this disagreement irresponsible.

Cyrusc 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus on this page is clear: Emcee's reverts delete relevant material. Emcee, if you want to make substantive edits to the text itself, do so! Those can form the basis for further discussion. Our obligation as editors is to respect consensus and move forward with useful edits. The community benefits when smart editors (yourself included) make new contributions and improvements. Benzocane 15:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Benzocane: the community also benefits when editors remove or ask for citations on unsourced material, check on the substance of citations to see that they actually do support the content, and review material for its worthiness for inclusion in an article based on WP standards.

CyrusC:

1.) SlipperyN was the one who brought up the word aggressive, I was just responding to his statement, and said that although it did seem a little aggressive to me, I won't make an issue of it -- not a big deal. I'm not throwing it around left and right. Mostly, his saying that I am "violating" NPOV was what I had an issue with. Talking about specific edits and identifiying NPOV problems is one thing; "violating" has the connotation that I have an intentional or significantly negligent attitude towards making POV edits. Perhaps some of the other editors could consider the difficulty of taking an unpopular stance, especially in the face of some comments that imply that I have an agenda or am intentionally slanting the article in an unfairly negative fashion. Please don't put additional words in my mouth and then answer them "in advance" -- I'm trying hard to work cooperatively and keep this civil.

2.) Where you say:

This sentence restates the information of the previous sentence, then introduces three pejoratives and the unwarranted ::intensifier "across the state." Yakima (dead link, by the way) and Olympia are "across the state" only in the most trivial sense.
As SlipperyN observed just yesterday, the single live link you cite does not substantiate this ::intensified/pejorated version of the preceding sentence.
The several intensifying "onlys" that you added later on in the paragraph compromise both the sense and the flow of the prose, in ::my opinion.

Let's look at the combined paragraph I made:

"Cantwell has received heavy criticism for declining most of the invitations she has received to debate McGavick in public forums. :Editorials in the Daily Olympian and the Yakima Herald-Republic have rebuked Cantwell, claiming that she is afraid to confront :McGavick. Newspapers across the state have chastised her debate approach, calling it 'unacceptable' and 'simply not fair.' Cantwell :agreed to a total of two debates with her opponent in Seattle and Spokane, lasting 60 and 30 minutes, respectively. However, when :Cantwell ran as a challenger for the Senate against the incumbent Slade Gorton in 2000, Gorton only agreed to two debates of a :similar format. In another comparison, when Washington's Senior Senator Patty Murray ran for re-election in 2004, she only agreed "to two debates with George Nethercutt, although both debates lasted one hour. [[9][10]"

A.) I can see how you can view sentence #3 as rehashing sentence #2 in some ways; however, a better approach to reversion would be to try to combine the two in order to retain the actual content. My combination of the two paragraphs wasn't perfect, but it was a step in the process. I would take it to the next step by combining the two sentences with something like:

"Media outlets across the state, including the Daily Olympian and the Yakima Herald-Republic, have rebuked Cantwell, claiming that she is afraid to confront McGavick, calling it 'unacceptable' and 'simply not fair.'"

"Across the state" is in fact warranted, though perhaps a revision to "media outlets" rather than "newspapers" would be justified with the radio citation -- as I mentioned in my previous comment above, the newspapers in Yakima and Olympia, as well as the radio in Spokane are all mentioned in the P-I article; along with Seattle (where at least one of the editorial pages, but I think both, of the major newspapers criticised her as well for this) that makes up all of the major population centers in WA, from east to west. I will see if I can dig up those editorials and add them as citations for this sentence.

B.) As for the two (not "several") "onlys" that I added to the following two sentences: they actually add meaning to those sentences. If you read closely, you will see that they serve the purpose of providing favorable (or ameliorating) comparisons for Cantwell: in both cases, they are saying that the incumbents (Republican Gorton, and Democrat Murray) ONLY agreed to two debates. As in, agreeing to only two debates is not uncommon for an incumbent senator of either stripe. So Cantwell is not doing anything particularly out of the ordinary here -- which is very much in line with what the P-I article is saying. Why, then, is this whole paragraph worthy of inclusion in the campaign section (as some editors have previously questioned)? Read the conclusion of the article:

'The UW's Gastil, a former campaign manager, said Cantwell, leading in the polls, is "running out the clock" until the election 38 days from today. It's a smart strategy, he said, but "it reflects very poorly on anyone who does that."'

There's the story: McGavick worked this to the hilt, by agreeing to 15 debates, forcing Cantwell to either debate more or decline 13 of them, angering the people who were snubbed by her and making a real media issue out of it. That's what this section should be about -- Cantwell makes the canny but unpopular decision to avoid debating any more than she has to; McGavick exploits it as much as he can. That's what election campaigns are made of -- not bullet points from a campaign web site.

3) As for your request that I bring in some more "real issues": as I told Benzocane, removing or asking for citations on unsourced or poorly sourced material is a perfectly legitimate function and activity for a Wikipedia editor. I do plan to add some more real issues, however. The next thing will probably be the "buyout" narrative as it applied to LaMagna, Wilson, Tran, and Dixon, in that order. Again, it's Cantwell leveraging her incumbent position of strength and funding in a way that probably gives her a net advantage in the end for the election; but it raises media attention and offends/angers people in the process.

4) I'm glad you welcome my disagreement; there are a few statements in your last few sentences that I could take as questioning my motivations. If so, I would ask that you assume good faith; if not, I apologize for misreading, and let's continue to focus on the edits themselves. We are all indeed spending some considerable time here on the talk page -- but that's how we reach an understanding on this, and also avoid just continually reverting each other.

Let me make one other comment: the citations I am relying on for the debate paragraph are major news publications, unlike the self-published and politicized sources (mostly the campaign page and lobbying groups' press releases) that are being used for most of the rest of the section. This IS an important distinction, and still needs to be addressed better for compliance with WP:RS.

Regards, Emcee 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the debate sentence that Cyrus C disagreed with:

The "three perjoratives" you are referring to I assume are the words "chastised," "unacceptable," and "simply not fair". The P-I article used the word "chided," which is a pretty close synonym for "chastised"; the Yakima link (which is not in fact dead, just slow -- try it again) used the word "unacceptable," and I believe one of the Olympian editorials made the "simply not fair" comment, though I may have to dig this up. Emcee 19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion on Image:Cantwell_28A.jpg

Coming over per request on WP:3. Is the photo helpful? Well, no, not really, but it doesn't harm anything either; in the grand scheme of things it's sort of irrelevant. That said, the photo is of poor quality - too few pixels and underexposed - so I'm not sure this particular photo is Wikipedia-worthy. There's also the issue of the man in the photo, who is unidentified; there may be policy against that (though I'm not certain). Also, given how close we are to the election, it's probably worth pointing out that the Mike McGavick article has only the one photo at the top, so in the interest of fairness (or, at least, some semblance of calm during a time where everyone is extra-touchy about everything related to these articles), my tendency is to try to keep thigs more or less "even". So when you add it all up, I would say it's best that this particular photo not be a part of the article, and if anyone is insistent about adding any other second photo to the article prior to November 7, it would be best that another one be added to Mike McGavick as well, if only to keep everyone on both sides halfway content. (There is, of course, no policy or guideline requiring parity in such cases, or that only a single photo be on a candidate's page. But adding another one at this time does tend to give off the appearance of impropriety, so it's probably in the best interest of Wikipedia that the issue not be pushed before Election Day.) --Aaron 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. I agree that the photo is low quality: it's basically a snapshot, there was no chance to set up a shot in such circumstances. I certainly did not intend it as electioneering, and I have no particular reason to get it up before the election; I happened to crop and upload it almost immediately after taking it because a blogger friend needed it done ASAP. - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So, now that the election is over, is there any objection to re-adding the photo? - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; I still think the photo doesn't add anything to the article. Although the third opinion related from Aaron related some of the problems to the fact that the election was nigh, also note the other things he said: the photo is poor quality, doesn't help the article (even if it doesn't harm it), has the question of the other person in the photo, and he was "not sure [the photo] is WIkipedia-worthy." Emcee 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At least one of his issues - that there "may be policy against" an unidentified person in a photo - is simply wrong. There is no such policy. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Emcee's environmental edit

I am willing to believe Emcee acted in good faith when he altered the text about Cantwell's environmental supporters. The reference supplied for the quote did specify the League of Conservation Voters. However, anybody familiar with this race knows that several other environmental groups have officially endorsed Cantwell, making the initial text more accurate that Emcee's revision. The Wildlife Action Fund, the Sierra Club, etc., have endorsed Cantwell. Instead of doing research to improve the entry, Emcee simply deleted text that was in fact more accurate. Benzocane 04:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just now added the "citation needed" next to other environmental groups. The article is intended to supply information even to those who are not familiar with the race; hence, citations are a good thing. I see you've added a couple of refs -- please add the footnotes to refer this sentence to them. Regards,Emcee 04:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw you added them to the external links -- they really belong in the refs section, external links is just for a few very useful external pages, while the refs are where you put things like this, that just support a specific statement. Anyway, I went ahead and moved it to the refs section for you. They are better citations than most of the others in this section -- they are more recent, and one actually mentiones the election campaign. Emcee 04:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right--thanks for moving them to ref section. Sorry for the oversight. Benzocane 00:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Atypical structuring

Why is her early life and career section way down at the bottom after all the specific isues? This is very odd and very different from any other page I've seen. Does anyone know hwo to rearrange the material to put her early life info as the first subsection, as is the standard?Dolewhite (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PAC

What means PAC in "Cantwell spent over $10 million of her own money on her campaign, pledging not to accept money from PACs"?. Regards.--Nopetro (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Political action committees. Gobonobo ^T ^C 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Olympian doesn't count

As a life long Olympian, and a frequent reader of The Olympian, I can safely say it doesn't count as a real newspaper. It once had an almost-full front page story devoted to how the town fountain wasn't on during the hottest day of the summer so far.

Yeah... great journalism.

[/Hate] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Second photograph

Why can't I make the photograph of Cantwell, Boxer and Lautenberg visible? The code appears to be exactly the same as that permitting the photo (farther down) of Cantwell at the 2008 DNC to be visible. Rontrigger (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Electoral History

Hey folks, on the Electoral History section, everything makes sense - except the column labeled "±%". There's no key or other label to explain what the values there mean, and they aren't obvious when looking at the math. I suggest removing it, unless someone can explain what it's there for (and then adds an explanatory note or something to make it clear in the article.) Karichisholm (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It indicates the % change between the election referenced and the last one. Note that the first two are Washington state and the next two are for the Senate, so it wouldn't carry over from the second to third. Joseph Steven (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Subsection: committee assignments needs to be updated to the 113th Congress

The subsection on committee assignments is still showing committee assignments as of the 112th Congress, which is no longer in session as of January.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maria Cantwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120420080933/http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_148/Maria-Cantwell-Still-Owed-Two-Million-From-Her-2000-Campaign-206939-1.html to http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_148/Maria-Cantwell-Still-Owed-Two-Million-From-Her-2000-Campaign-206939-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Cantwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_021904WABcantwellfinancesJK.ad39ecc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Cantwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Cantwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Maria Cantwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maria Cantwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Cantwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005213102/http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_9514415 to http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_9514415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Brother

Is it worth mentioning her brother was charged (and acquitted) of murder in the 1980s? http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060728&slug=cantwellyouth28m SecretName101 (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Cantwell at RealNetworks

The current article says this about Senator Cantwell:

She then briefly worked in the private sector as Vice President of Marketing for RealNetworks.

Alright, I'll admit, I have a massive conflict of interest in editing this article. I worked with ~~Maria~~ erm, Senator Cantwell from 1996-1999 (or maybe 2000? I lost track; RNWK was a pretty big company by the the time she left), and she was part of the reason I joined the company. Cantwell managed a pretty large group at ~~Progressive Networks~~ RealNetworks, and played a pretty big role in the success of the company. In fact, the article has a "Private sector employment (1995–1999)" which suggests she left RealNetworks in 1999, and I know she started way before I did (I joined in '96). Regardless, I know from personal experience that she was pretty integral to the operation of the company until she left to go run against Slade Gorton. Could someone change the "briefly" bit? 4 years is not "brief", and minimizes the fact that the company was tiny when she joined (it was truly just a startup) and was a large, publicly-traded company when she left. -- RobLa (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Belarus?

It seems to me that Russia could easily switch military targets from Ukraine to Belarus. Any thoughts? Steve Treacy, Port Townsend, WA. 72.202.87.28 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)