Talk:Kyrsten Sinema

Untitled

"She attracted much negative attention from American progressives, particularly after her performative "thumbs down" gesture when voting against a minimum wage increase." Not even an attempt at encyclopedic tone here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.8.118 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Under the heading filibuster

"never had 60 votes and they managed to do a lot of bad things done during that time"

No matter how many times I've read this, I can't seem to make the grammar fit unless someone is speaking mockingly and trying to make a fool out of how they perceive someone speaking.

"do a lot of bad things done"

Can someone verify the authenticity of this quote or correct it if it's a misquote. 2A01:79C:CEBE:4AE0:F06C:8214:D343:2FB2 (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Softening (redacted)

An editor removed the details of (Redacted), removed the citations of her taking donations from particular pharmaceutical executives.

all maxed out to Sinema: Eli Lilly Chief Executive David Ricks Merck board Chair Kenneth Frazier Bristol Myers Squibb Chair and Chief Executive Giovanni Caforio

POLITICO’s Hailey Fuchs reports is up from $5,000 in the three months prior....Sinema also hauled in money from top pharma leaders like Gilead Chief Executive Daniel O’Day, who gave $5,000. Eli Lilly Chief Executive David Ricks, Merck board Chair Kenneth Frazier and Bristol Myers Squibb Chair and Chief Executive Giovanni Caforio all maxed out to Sinema, while Genentech Chief Executive Alexander Hardy gave $2,500. A pair of in-house lobbyists for PhRMA, Jennifer Bryant and Anne Esposito, and Debra DeShong, the drug lobby’s executive vice president for public affairs, all gave $1,000....Sinema also received donations from the tobacco industry, which has set its sights on tobacco and nicotine taxes that House Democrats proposed to help pay for the bill. The PAC for the National Association of Truckstop Operators, a group whose membership includes tobacco companies and which has fought the proposed taxes, gave Sinema $5,000 and Manchin $2,500. James Haslam, the chief executive of truckstop chain Pilot Flying J and secretary of the Truckstop Operators, gave $2,900 to both Manchin and Sinema, despite typically contributing heavily to Republicans. John Hoel, an in-house lobbyist for tobacco giant Altria, gave Sinema $500, while The Cigar Association of America’s PAC donated $1,000. Caitlin Oprysko with Dave Lippman, Politico, "Who wrote checks to Sinema and Manchin last quarter" December 18, 2021Dogru144 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Your editing needs softening. Mind WP:BLP. And this is way too much quoting of a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

50-50 split between D and R

The lede states Congress is split 50-50. But should this be in past tense? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There are 50 members caucusing with Democrats and 50 with Republicans. Sinema hasn't said that she's caucusing with Republicans, so nothing there has changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sinema says she's not caucusing with the Republicans, and Schumer says she'll keep her committee assignments. It's still 51-49 next year, but it's 50-50 for the next three weeks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

She hasn't said who she'll be caucusing with. Therefore the Democrats are at 49 (47 Dems & 2 Inds), the Republicans are at 50, while Sinema is a minority of 1. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Unless we see an update indicating she won't caucus with Dems, we should not update this article to say that. The implication from what she's said is that she will continue to caucus with Dems, and we don't have reliable sourcing to the contrary. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It won't matter either way after 8 January 2023, when Ben Sasse resigns. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Change lead image

Proposed image (2020)

The lead image is from when Sinema was in the U.S. House and not Senate. I figured it'd be proper to have a more recent image in terms of one depicting her during her tenure in the Senate. 73.110.175.228 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I can get behind this. It looks like an official portrait, she's facing the forward and it's take during her time in her current office (U.S. Senator not U.S. Rep like the current image). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

(Pls delete, it has run its course and has devolved into accusations of "conspiracy theory" by the dim) How is she a "centrist"?

Don't feed the you know what's please. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Last I checked the votes nearly every time with Biden. You can't support a far-left president so consistently without being far-left yourself. 2600:4040:445D:C200:E3FA:AB6:F689:8A4A (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's how: – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

So, because 3 random journos working for establishment propaganda outlets said a thing, it must be true to you? I get that the party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes, but there should be at least a little critical thinking, no? 2600:4040:445D:C200:E3FA:AB6:F689:8A4A (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. I only included three, but there are many more. I don't agree that we have a far-left president, or that the party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes. These are your personal beliefs and you are entitled to them. But Wikipedia will continue to reflect the reliable sources that you wish to knock. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

But again, how can these sources be reliable when they've all written highly inaccurate things? Again, you're just letting the party do your seeing for you. It simply does not make sense to label the NYT, CNN or WaPo as "unbiased and fact based" when they all supported the false conspiracy of Saddam Hussein's WMDs, they all supported the witch hunt against Trump during his first term and they all refused to issue retractions when the Durham report proved everything. So, don't tell me they are "reliable" when there is a completely biased and arbitrary standard detailing what is and is not "reliable". Again, voting in line with a far-left president is not a "centrist" position. 2600:4040:445D:C200:273B:3475:58CD:E3AE (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Which is the country with the far-left President? The US currently has a centrist in office. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

America has a far-left president. 2600:4040:445D:C200:273B:3475:58CD:E3AE (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be interesting as Joe Biden is barely on the left let alone part of the far-left, do you have a source for that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd classify Biden as "center-left", but that's not the point of this. The point is that reliable sources do fact checking and strive to get it right. They don't every time, like Saddam's WMDs, but nobody gets it right all the time. On the other hand, unreliable sources push their narrative at any cost, even if they fudge certain things or lie blatantly. The page on RS describes this better than I can. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How can you say that when the media knowingly lied about the Hunter Biden laptop because the FBI told them so, or how they again lied about the Trump admin? These are highly partisan sources which openly endorse the far-left ideas of people like Sarah Jeong, so again, how can they somehow be beacons of integrity when they have a clear partisan slant?

Also Biden is far-left on culture issues, but on economics he's just another globalist neolib. I seriously hate how modern political discourse is "right vs left" instead of "national vs global, economically liberal vs reatrictionist, culturally reactionary vs conservative vs revolutionary" etc. I hate how difficult it is to express nuance in political discourse. 2600:4040:445D:C200:273B:3475:58CD:E3AE (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for you to spew conspiracy theories. WP:NOTAFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Everything that goes against what I was told to believe must be a conspiracy theory" 2600:4040:445D:C200:273B:3475:58CD:E3AE (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

the media knowingly lied about the Hunter Biden laptop yeah this is completely inaccurate and off topic for Kyrsten Sinema. If you want to take up issues of reliable sources, try WP:RSN. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Except it is completely true and it is a damning indictment against the so-called "reliable" sources. 2600:4040:445D:C200:273B:3475:58CD:E3AE (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Imagine it to be whatever you like, but we'll keep Wikipedia focused on what we can verify. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And btw, The NYT, CNN and WaPo did indeed report what the Bush government said was happening in Iraq. They report what the government says, right or left. But, afterwards, The NYT prominently published a lengthy apology for reporting the Bush gov't nonsense about WMDs without adequate caution. Admitting error is one of the hallmarks of reliability. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Capital punishment and LGBT in Saudi Arabia

I removed the following content from from the capital punishment section:

In 2013, Sinema co-sponsored Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney's letter, which opposed Saudi Arabia for "the use of torture and capital punishment against the LGBTQ community".

My edit was reverted by Horse Eye's Back. I would like to see the content removed again.

To summarize the section: From 2000-2010, Sinema was active in campaigning against the death penalty. In 2017, Sinema voted for a bill to increase the number of situations in which people would be sentenced to death. In the middle, between 2010 and 2017, this line about Saudi Arabia is included. What does it tell us about Sinema's position on capital punishment and the change taking place in her views? Precisely nothing.

Sinema is well known for advocating for expanding LGBT rights, as documented elsewhere in the article. It is unremarkable for someone in favor of expanding LGBT rights to advocate for decriminalizing their behavior. Opposition to any particular punishment (eg. capital punishment) is even more unremarkable. If you want to put this in the "LGBT rights" section as an example of her advocacy on that issue, I have no objection, but it doesn't tell us anything about her position on the death penalty, and so it shouldn't be in the capital punishment section. Daask (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We could also put it in an International relations section as well, what we can't do is remove it entirely because it appears due. It was removed entirely not moved so the issue isn't whether it should be in that section, its whether it should be in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I've moved the fragment to the LGBT rights section. While I don't mind it there, I must confess that I don't understand your statement that "what we can't do is remove it entirely because it appears due." A high-profile individual such as Sinema has countless news articles describing their position on countless issues. Editors need to be selective in what they deem to be worth including. That's just my two cents on editing philosophy. Daask (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sinema controversy paragraph

I admit it could be better written, but it seems somewhat like whitewashing for user:Davefelmer to outright delete the entire paragraph with no replacement. Sinema IS a controversial figure, widely liked in some circles and widely loathed in others. We need a substantive and neutral way to address that in the lead.

I suggest:

"Sinema is considered a controversial figure, and has earned both praise and criticism for her strong emphasis on bipartisanship and support of the filibuster." SVeach94 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that it has no prominence in the article body, so how does it warrant inclusion in the lead? Davefelmer (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Praise from the 1%, criticism from 99% of Americans. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Arizona Chamber of Commerce

• 
  Arizona Chamber of Commerce 2013
• 
  Arizona Chamber of Commerce 2019

69.181.17.113 (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing the Image

This photo of her is from May 2024 when Kyrstem Sinema was speaking at the Capitol Hill Hosted by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry. Since it's more up to date here is what it looks like.

Proposed Image

Fad8229 (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)