Talk:Vicky Hartzler

Needed
This article needs an infobox, and a link to her Missouri Legislature site (if Missouri keeps those for previous legislatures). There are plenty of other articles about Missouri state legislators which could serve as examples to improve this one. Flatterworld (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It never fails to amaze me how so many Republican candidates have no idea who they're running against, judging from their articles. Flatterworld (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This article should have more detail about the fact that Hartzler hates gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a video of Hartzler being questioned about her anti-gay crusades by a gay medical student: . Personman2 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New subsection--"Birther" statements
I added a segment regarding statements made today (April 6, 2012) expressing doubts as to the genuineness of President Obama's birth certificate, but could really use some more experienced eyes to make certain the format is correct. Thanks. 99.124.218.65 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Per your request, I think I tidied it up and corrected the date of the town hall to April 5, 2012. I also added other statements made at the town hall with the original cite. Activist (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

what about when she said "we just want the government to leave us alone" Even though she accepted 3/4 of a million dollars in government subsidies? Can someone add that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.136.52 (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted attempted whitewashing
An anonymous edit from the US House of Representatives deleted this section, but I restored it. Neurophyre(talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section
As per the Wikipedia policy guidelines on Biography pages, the "Controversies" section should be moved into the U.S. House of Representatives. Currently, the section broken out on its own seems to violate the policy on NPOV. Does anybody have an objection to this? AlexMODC (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the material should be moved to U.S. House of Representatives. However, I do agree that the presentation of the material here is problematic. Ideally, the criticisms section should be changed into a section on Hartzler views and voting record, without undue emphasis on her controversial statements. Any controversial statements which received substantial media attention, however, could be appropriate to include. I've tagged the section for rewriting. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I think changing the way it's displayed from "controversies" to views and voting record would be great, thanks for taking a look. AlexMODC (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed most of it. Our Biographies of Living People policy requires that we immediately remove poorly-sourced contentious material about living people, without discussion and even if we have to revert other editors beyond the three-revert rule. This is especially needed on pages about politicians, which are often the subject of politically motivated editing/sources. In this case, many of the sources were junk sources, broken links, policy advocacy pages, gossip sites, etc. Exactly the kind of thing BLP is intended to protect individuals against. In the future if the issue re-surfaces, please feel free to ping me directly on my Talk page and I will resolve it more promptly. CorporateM (Talk) 02:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @user:Dolescum I don't think this is a strong enough source for contentious material about a BLP. Specifically because it's called the "Sedalia Democrat" whereas the article-subject is a republican (a republican newspaper wouldn't be NPOV either). While some major newspapers have slight political leanings, we should avoid sources that openly advocate for a political agenda. CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , respectfully, this source doesn't look any more partisan to my eyes than The Telegraph or The Guardian here in the UK. Dolescum (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some Googling around for other sources and found a decent source in Politico. The Sedalia Democrat article does have a neutral tone and I see they are heavily cited in other newspapers. OTOH, I'm not convinced her comments at this particular event were really that significant as oppose to the kind of political noise that follows things like the birth certificate issue. I won't edit-war over it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just a quick aside, a newspaper having the word "Republican" or "Democrat" is presumptively irrelevant. For instance, the leading newspaper in my state is called the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (after the Arkansas Democrat bought out the Arkansas Gazette in the mid-90s).  The ADG is, to put it mildly, a right-wing rag, yet still has the word "Democrat" in it.  You can find similar examples in other states.  Now, the Democrat has always been a conservative newspaper (and switched parties, so to speak, when the Republican Party became the unambiguous center-right party in the US), but the labels on newspapers is a very little import.Skberry889 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, perhaps to make it more consistent, the Arkansas-Democrat Gazette (a newspaper that I can describe in great detail since it was managed by my family from 1926 to 1976) is not a "Democratic newspaper." Perhaps the above poster simply didn't understand that the name of a well-established newspaper usually has very little to do with its biases (if any).  I'm not trying to be insulting (many conservative Arkansans won't read the ADG for that same reason).  If anything, it seems to be a uniquely American notion that the name of a newspaper is largely irrelevant, and I don't know the domicile status of the aforementioned poster.  In any event, no insult was intended, and I hope none was presumed.Skberry889 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

On her role in the ban of transgenders from the US military
User:Rms125a@hotmail.com removed information about her role in the ban of transgenders from the US military from the lede, even though the body of the text includes 7 paragraphs about it. The lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article, and I think this should be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Vicky Hartzler is a hard-core anti-transsexual warrior.--2601:C4:C080:81C:6101:6A5:BA17:B043 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous edits from US House of Representatives
This article is seeing some anonymous edit traffic from IP ranges associated with the US House of Representatives. A number of the edits have been favorable / promotional in nature. It would be a good idea to watch the history for this article. Neurophyre(talk) 13:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?
Re:, where Paleontologist99 re-added with edit summary "please see Barack Obama section". Here is what this section of the article says: "At a town hall meeting in Missouri on April 5, 2012, Hartzler expressed doubts regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate.  "

These doubts expressed at a town hall meeting clearly fall into the scope of guideline WP:OPINIONCAT: Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists).

Hartzler did not create or otherwise associate her name with conspiracy theories, she merely repeated comments that are mostly unremarkable for a conservative politician. According to verbatim of her comments given by the Sedania Democrat local newspaper and repeated by the other 2 sources, she did not even make positive statements in support of the conspiracy theory (which is that Obama would not be a natural-born citizen of the U.S.), but used wording such as "I don’t know, I haven’t seen it" in answer to an audience question. This is very, very far from being defined as anything like a conspiracy theorist, per the WP:CATDEF guideline which e.g. states: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. If you find reliable sources (i.e. those listed as such at WP:RS/P) that call her a "conspiracy theorist" and do so consistently (i.e. several publications separated in time), we could discuss if she is defined as such. See for instance how the motherjones.com editor (which is a source considered oriented but reliable) compares her, in an ironical comment, to “someone who has serious concerns that the President [is] constitutionally unqualified to be President—but never took 10 seconds to Google the thing for herself and doesn’t feel like doing anything about it.”

I therefore believe that the Vicky Hartzler article does not belong in per our guidelines. Place Clichy (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is sad but true that all sorts of crazy statements are "unremarkable for a conservative politician" in the US. Still, you are right: WP:OPINIONCAT applies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, thank you for the detailed refutation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NB: it is not a "refutation" of "she is a conspiracy theorist" but a justification for removing the category. Completely different thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Even if it has no place here, my personal opinion of this "I don't know" answer if akin to that of a Congressman who would be asked if they think the Earth is flat or what they think of slavery and would give the same answer. Place Clichy (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * HartzlerSwearingIn.jpg