Talk:Stacey Abrams

Evidence of "Voter Suppression"
The overwhelming majority of reliable sources state that there is no evidence that "voter suppression affected the outcome of the election" yet the lead presents the disingenuous view that most sources view this as something that is up to debate or can never be known. It's one of the basic rules of science that a person presenting a claim needs to present evidence for it, you can't just claim there is an infinitesimally small teapot orbiting somewhere out in space because nobody can prove you wrong. All but one source cited in this article states that no evidence has been presented to support the claim that voter suppression affected the outcome, and the only other source added to the lead that says it can never be known is just quoting one person who claimed this, and this source isn't even in the body of this article. That neither summarizes nor places due weight on what the majority of sources express. Bill Williams 16:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not consistent with my understanding of what the balance of reliable sources say. Note also that the existing language was the product of extensive discussion and compromise in the above discussion. Finally, it is odd to argue that the balance of reliable sources do not support the current language while also deleting an undeniably reliable source by subject-matter expert Richard L. Hasen, as you just did: . In that edit summary you state it is not up to "news outlets and political scientists" to determine anything. What? Wikipedia is based on such sources, not the original analysis of editors. Generalrelative (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's your original analysis to manufacture a sentence claiming that "news outlets and political scientists have been unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result." No source claims this, and the one source that I removed which stated some vague "we" as never being able to know what the result was not in the body so I removed it because the lead is a summary of the body, not cherrypicking a random source that is nowhere in the body to support a claim in the lead. Every single other source states some derivation of "there is no evidence" that voter suppression affected the result. Bill Williams 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The first source states "However, no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams," the second source  states "No proof voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams from governorship, as Democrats said in Atlanta debate," while both the third and fourth sources state that there is no evidence that voter suppression affected the election results, and that without any evidence it is impossible to determine if it did. It is inherent that you can never make a definitive conclusion on anything, but there has been no evidence that voter suppression affected the result and there continues to be no evidence that it did, hence it is not that we are "have been unable to determine" but that it is impossible to determine that it affected the result because there is zero evidence that it did. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim and it is absurd to pretend in the lead of this article like there is any shred of evidence that voter suppression affected the result, when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that there has not been any evidence presented. Bill Williams 17:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An additional source states that "While Abrams has maintained the 2018 gubernatorial election was unfair and tainted by voter suppression, there’s no empirical evidence that now-Gov. Kemp stole that election from her," which is another way of stating that there is no evidence that voter suppression affected the result of the election. There are numerous claims that cannot be proven true or false, but it is our job to present the fact that there is no evidence to prove those claims rather than vaguely state that people "have been unable to determine" if they are true or false. Bill Williams 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All I'll say at the moment is that I find your arguments unconvincing. Your claim that the Hasen source is not discussed in the body is easily refuted. It's ref 58 and 82, quoted a couple times in the the "2018 gubernatorial campaign" subsection. Perhaps the refs should be consolidated, but that's no excuse for not hitting control+F before alleging that the source doesn't appear in the body. In any case, I'm not interested in getting into another protracted argument over this issue. I'm satisfied that the previous discussion resolved things well enough. Let's see if others care to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion resolved nothing, and the current lead is a false balance of sources by using a single source to pretend like five others don't exist. Claiming that nobody can determine what happened is a far more misleading view than stating the fact that there is zero evidence "voter suppression" affected anything. Abrams claimed the election was stolen and it's absurd for the lead of this article to pretend like her view was backed by any shred of evidence. I think I'll open an RfC on the issue. Bill Williams 12:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed the part where you at least acknowledge that you were wrong. And jumping right into an RfC before even hearing a third opinion would be highly improper per WP:RFCBEFORE. Generalrelative (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't wrong, but thanks for the passive aggressive remark. The source is utilized in the body, sure, but the claim that "News outlets and political science experts have been unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result" is never backed up by the source in the body- the later citations that you mention as the same source are people claiming Kemp was a bad Secretary of State, they never claim that his actions affected the result. I missed the part where you showed any evidence that "voter suppression" changed the election result, when every reliable source says there is no evidence of such. And I have gotten far more than three opinions, with the previous discussion involving multiple editors and resulting in no consensus. It would be highly improper to just ignore the issue entirety. Bill Williams 13:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm, I can read. And so can anyone else who stumbles on this conversation. Above you stated the one source that I removed ... was not in the body so I removed it because the lead is a summary of the body, not cherrypicking a random source that is nowhere in the body to support a claim in the lead. I showed you that you were wrong about this: the source was used (and discussed) several times in the article body. And now you're saying I wasn't wrong, but thanks for the passive aggressive remark. I stopped reading your comment there. Good luck persuading others. Generalrelative (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is used in the body for a completely different claim, so while you were technically correct that it is in the body, calling me wrong didn't change the fact that there is nothing in the body stating that some reliable sources believe "voter suppression affected the result," while the lead continues to claim that we are all unable to know. There is a difference between a source being in the lead and the body, and the content in the body matching the lead, which is currently not the case. The lead states that people are unable to determine if voter suppression affected the result, but the reliable sources for the claim all state that there is no evidence for the claim, while a single one states that we may never know, but that specific claim is never in the body of this Wikipedia article. Bill Williams 17:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bill Williams, calling established consensus "disingenuous" is a non-starter. Not likely to get your views the attention you feel they deserve. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except there is no established consensus, there was a disagreement over the content and it was never resolved, but editors lost interest and this is what remained, that doesn't somehow mean what is currently there was consensus, and there should be an RfC on the matter to determine what the consensus actually is. Bill Williams 22:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed over the previous discussion and there was absolutely not an overall consensus for the current wording, just two editors agreeing to it while another said the discussion was not over, but then people got distracted by the focus on her refusal to concede the 2018 election. Since the wording over her refusal to concede in 2018 was resolved, I think it's time to focus back on the wording over the lack of evidence of "voter suppression." I objected to the current wording along with four other editors at the time, and your only response to me was to randomly say "Just like with Trump, Kari Lake, Mastriano, and Josh Hawley -- right, Bill? Same thing?" as if that had anything to do with the discussion. Since you had mentioned it, I think those Republicans were pathetic for making claims were completely unsubstantiated, while Stacey Abrams has also failed to present a single shred of evidence that "voter suppression" affected the election results. Hence we clearly need an RfC (which was mentioned before the discussion got distracted in the past) to change the current wording, because there was no overall consensus for it to ever be there. Bill Williams 23:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with @Bill Williams here. As far as I can tell, no reliable sources have presented evidence to support Abrams' claims that the election was "rigged", "stolen", et cetera. I think we need to be clear about this. To me, it appears misleading to be so vague and non-committal about this in the opening section. I'm sure reasonable editors would oppose such wishy-washy language on, say, Donald Trump's page. Living in a time as we do, where election denialism is an existential threat to some democracies, we shouldn't equivocate or give undue weight to the idea that Abrams' election was stolen. Pecopteris (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As discussed numerous times above, we're following what the sources say here. This case is substantially different from that of Donald Trump. Generalrelative (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it certainly is substantially different along multiple dimensions. I don't mean to imply that the case is identical to Donald Trump. Obviously, there are many other aggravating factors in the Trump case, some of which is currently under criminal investigation. I'm no defender of his, to be clear.
 * While I agree with you enthusiastically that we should "follow what the sources say", I must disagree that this has actually taken place.
 * in both cases (Trump/Abrams), the following facts are the same:
 * 1) In both cases, the subject (Trump/Abrams) tried to get elected to a post in the U.S. government.
 * 2) In both cases, the subject lost the election, according to all election officials and essentially all reliable sources.
 * 3) In both cases, the subject explicitly and persistently called the election "rigged" and "stolen", despite providing no evidence.
 * 4) In both cases, only a smattering of fringe voices made any suggestion of impropriety in the election, and these fringe voices brought no evidence to the table of fraud.
 * I think it's strange, and a bit deceptive, to limit the wording to "voter suppression" instead of addressing Abrams' very bold claims of "rigging" and "stealing". Those are the really explosive, and frankly, dangerous claims. We should be very clear to the reader - Stacey Abrams denied the results of an election, and called the election "rigged" and "stolen" - in absolute contradiction of all election officials, courts, and basically all of the "reliable sources", none of which have found any evidence of fraud or criminality. In fact, if any "reliable source" did give credence to the idea that the election was "stolen" from Stacey Abrams, I'd say we should be questioning the reliability of that source.
 * I think that three relevant policies here would be WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:FRINGE. It's deceptive to suggest that the certitude and legitimacy of Stacey Abrams' defeat is in doubt in any way. She lost the election, and there was no "rigging" or "stealing". All of the reliable sources support that assertion. I think we have a responsibility as Wikipedians AND as civic participants to avoid equivocating on this issue, even if our knee-jerk reaction might be "I don't want to invite comparisons to Trump".
 * We're getting really damn close to living in a time where everyone denies every election, and eventually, nobody will trust or respect any election outcome. Once that happens, we'll long for the days when we had the safety and freedom to sit on our computer and debate the wording of a Wikipedia article. As the most-read reference work on Earth, I think we can do something significant to combat this - namely, by not providing a false sense of balance on these clear-cut matters, and by not trying to use linguistic tricks to shield Stacey Abrams from the consequences of her sickening decision to deny a legitimate election, even if she might be a lovely lady in every other regard.
 * I look forward to your response and, perhaps, a rebuttal. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very thoughtful and civil post. I do, however, think that all of your points have been addressed in the previous discussion. The substantive allegation of voter suppression was never actually refuted, due to the highly irregular actions of then-Attorney General Brian Kemp not to recuse himself from making impactful decisions affecting Georgians' ability to vote in the election while himself standing as a candidate. This is all discussed in reliable sources which are cited in the article body, e.g. Richard L. Hasen's Election Meltdown (Yale University Press, 2020), which states that We don't know – and may never know – how many people were disenfranchised or dissuaded from voting in the state. But it's clear that Kemp did everything in his power to put in place restrictive voting policies that would help his candidacy and hurt his opponent, all while overseeing his own election. The article does not exist to call out Abrams for using strong language to describe Kemp's actions, which would run afoul of WP:RGW. It just needs to follow what the reliable sources say according to WP:DUE weight, and the existing lead seems to do an adequate job of that. Generalrelative (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Perennial Candidate" is innacurate and should be deleted
This is not a correct use of the term, which means "A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for public office without a reasonable chance of winning. The term is the opposite of an incumbent politician who repeatedly defends their seat successfully. In the U.S., perennial candidates are usually affiliated with third party politics." (Wikipedia)

The term is often used in the pejorative and I suspect this is the case here. In any event, the label is not an accurate description of the subject. JimmyZuma (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thanks for spotting that. I've removed it. Generalrelative (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search turned up at least four sources that have applied this term to Abrams:
 * https://hudson.house.gov/media/enewsletters/unmask-our-kids
 * https://newsouthpolitics.com/2022/09/20/stacey-abrams-still-trails-kemp-even-in-ajc-poll/
 * https://san.com/opinions/georgias-election-laws-falsely-accused-of-voter-suppression/
 * https://www.commentary.org/noah-rothman/where-trumps-endorsement-won-republicans-are-losing/
 * I think the label merits inclusion. Pecopteris (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you consider those to be high quality sources? Enough to make an unattributed statement in Wikivoice? Generalrelative (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not quite enough for an unattributed Wikivoice statement in the first sentence. That's a bridge too far, even if they were high-quality sources and we could use Wikivoice, it wouldn't be desirable to start the article with such a tone. My view is that we have overcorrected here. We can't completely decline to include it merely because "the term is often used in the pejorative" or "the label is not an accurate description of the subject". I don't see how those arguments pass muster. Pecopteris (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But the text that I removed as suggested above simply called her a perennial candidate in Wikivoice. Are you suggesting that we include new language like According to X, Y, and Z, Abrams is a "perennial candidate"? I'm not convinced that that adds any encyclopedic value to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Rouge Justice
Abrams's second novel published in her name (second in the Avery Keene series) needs to be added in the book section of her page and also on the While Justice Sleeps page. 173.68.86.145 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Kessler Article
I don’t have sufficient expertise to suggest how, but the Kessler fact checking article cited to in this entry contains claims that in the underlying sources he’s citing to. The one that stands out to me is the claim that Abrams stated she won the election, but if you follow the links to what he’s citing for that, she’s just talking about the success of her campaign in expanding the electorate, not that she received more votes in the election. If the Kessler claim stays in, that context should be added. Yohannanx (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)