Jump to content

Talk:Cori Bush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

Former American politician. Sirpsa (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done She lost reelection, no indication she has retired from politics. Safiel (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (2)

[edit]

Based on the reference to footnote 56 and the details in the NPR article, please consider changing

“On January 30, 2024, Bush confirmed reports that she was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged misuse of federal security money.[55] The Office of Congressional Ethics previously investigated the same allegations and voted unanimously to dismiss the case after finding no evidence of wrongdoing.[56”

To

“On January 30, 2024, Bush confirmed reports that she was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Election Commission, and the House Committee on Ethics for alleged misuse of campaign funds to pay her husband as a member of her security detail.[55][56] According to Bush, The Office of Congressional Ethics, staffed by career government employees, previously investigated the same allegations and voted unanimously to dismiss the case after finding no evidence of wrongdoing.[56]”

This will more accurately the investigations.

Thank you Wallaceandgrommet (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I added the FEC part to the first sentence and attributed the claim in the second sentence to Bush. I omitted the part about OCE being staffed by career government employees because it is lifted verbatim from the source and the relevance is unclear.
I also did not describe the allegations as it may be undue, particularly if the claim about OCE finding no wrongdoing is true. I'm on the fence about this since she's definitely a public figure, if other editors disagree feel free to add. Jamedeus (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to add opponent's information

[edit]

As per previous US house representatives it does not display PAC:s who supported another opponent. Highly problematic to remove that edit by me. Melledelle (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have tied Cori Bushes defeat to Israeli lobbying and have published it in the headline: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not relevant to the article. Melledelle (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly as relevant or even more then Bush losing the Democratic nomination for her seat to Wesley Bell.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not sound neutral to assume that her defeat was solely caused by a foreign power. Steven1991 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text did not say "solely" or that it was a "foreign power", it said pro-Israel lobbying groups.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Reliable sources” are not right on everything. Journalists are humans, who can be affected by biases and interests. It is problematic to claim that some kind of secret powerful group caused Cori Bush’s defeat as it strips the voters of their agency, which is not respectful of the democratic process. Steven1991 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text did not say that any group that backed her ousting is "secret". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a policy-based reason to change the entry. We rely on reliable sources, we don’t have debates among the personal opinions of individual editor—that would be original research. I’m going to untag the article unless you have a concern based in Wikipedia policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a glaring omission for anyone who followed the election, considering the extent of press coverage as well as Bush's own comments on the funding. If not in the election section, where would be appropriate? Lastchapter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. We follow the sources on the subject of the entry, not Wikipedia entries on other subjects. If it gets a lot of coverage, we include it, if it doesn’t, we don’t. Here it did. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defund the police

[edit]

She has been accused of hypocrisy for having private security while wanting to defund the police.

When people accused her of being a hypocrite, she responded by saying “You would rather me die? Is that what you want to see? You want to see me die? You know, because that could be the alternative.”

I think this is notable and should be included.

What do others think?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/566562-cori-bush-defends-private-security-at-capitol-you-would-rather-me-die/

Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added as her support of “defund the police” is included in the section on political positions. This is relevant. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]