Talk:Kathleen Sebelius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Kathleen Sebelius is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Maiden name

At no point does the article explicitly state her maiden name. I realize it says her father was John Gilligan, but it should probably say it in the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.146 (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Intro

Almost everything said in the introduction is mentioned in the rest of the article. The current intro also clearly lacks a neutral POV and other Wiki policies. Most of the entire article is a love letter to Sebelius.

Whatever! By the way, sign your comments.Cameron Nedland 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding the tone of the article. It spends so much time promoting hearsay that she is a possible running mate for Obama that one can only wonder if her public affairs person authored this page. When I added information on her current misstep, I got a message that my input was unconstructive and it was reverted. The person who did that finally answered my questions when I observed that he/she was spending time making fun of people vandalizing his/her talk page. After some exchanges, the person finally admitted that the "unconstructive" remark was that I stated that the game's tagline "Where no one playing enters through the front door!" was a reference to anal sex. I was told I would need to cite evidence supporting this since we are talking about a living person. The person even said that he/she understood the double entendré.--Wonder J (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Governor John Gilligan

I removed the previous link to Governor Sebelius's father. Obviously, this John Gilligan is a different John Gilligan that the Governor's father.

I suggest someone make a Governor John Gilligan page.

Okay, I fixed the problem. The new link is John J. Gilligan.

[edit] Picture

If she's going to run for president, she really needs a picture that looks more...well, presidential. -Sam Seaborn

I think she looks just yummy.Saltforkgunman 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying she doesn't look good, but the color of her suit just doesn't look presidential to me. I wish the picture had been taken in a dark blue power suit or something. -Sam Seaborn

[edit] gun rights

I edited out the incorrect info that she supported gun rights.Just because a democrat says its all right to have a gun to hunt,doesn't make her a supporter.She vetoed the concealed carry bill.And cited sources.Saltforkgunman 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think she looks yummy,but your link doesn't show anything about her being a supporter of gun rights or a hunter.Why soft soap it?On the rare occasion that I cross the KS line,I carry anyway,I will not give up my rights.Do you know what a 'disarmed victim zone' is?I'm not going to get nasty and edit your stuff,but lets get real.Saltforkgunman 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, you may want to be aware that you are not completely anonymous here - your username is connected to an IP address which narrows you down pretty well. It may not be best to admit to committing crimes on this site, or anywhere online for that matter. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe she qualifies as a supporter b/c she signed into law a bill which standardizes gun laws throughout the 105 counties of Kansas. This way hunters who travel wont fall victim to a patchwork of different gun laws...it sure has made it easier for me to hunt knowing that a single uniform firearms code exists.

Allow me to turn the question though...why does vetoing a single concealled carry bill equate to not supporting gun rights? Does this one act negate all the other times she has defended and promoted responsible gun ownership? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.139.121.173 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dang...I can be wrong,but her comments don't sound like those of a gun rights supporter.And I do know about the standardization law she signed.Wasn't there something about the override votes being there?I'm interested in proof of your statement 'all the other times she has supported gun rights'.

To try to answer your question(the one you turned),vetoing the CCW bill leaves people with a choice,go disarmed in these days of rampant crime(remember the Wichita Massacre?)and terrorism,or break a law that defies the U.S.Constitution and carry a gun illegally.You might be surprised at how many of the good guys out there carry guns in contravention of state laws. To my way of thinking and about a zillion others,it demonstrates an elitist attitude and a lack of caring about the defence of life and property,and in fact sounds kind of hysterical.But I do like the way she looks.Saltforkgunman 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The question in my mind: is it our place to judge whether she is a supporter or opponent of gun rights? I think that drawing that conclusion might be original research unless we can find sources that claim one or the other. If we find that sources claim both, we can say that too! But I don't like the arbitrary statements one way or the other. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. She hasn't imposed any new restrictions to gun ownership. [1] A well regulated militia.....(I;m sure you know the rest)

Cool.Saltforkgunman 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

ESkog,go see my work at Rod Blagojevich Saltforkgunman 06:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch.Another nail in the coffin of her political career.Saltforkgunman 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny? ESkog is zapping our posts about Sebelius' remarks about her son's board game, but are they editing the remarks about Blagojevich? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder J (talk • contribs) 13:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course, Black Kite deleted my posts about the Governor's official position on her son's vulgar board game saying that the comment was about her son and not relevant to anything else in the article. I deleted the comments about Governor Sebelius' brother Keith since his political beliefs are in no way, shape, or form relevant to how Governor Kathleen Sebelius governs Kansas. Why is it that people are quick to delete things that are negative yet turn a blind eye to the rest of the frou-frou in this article? It really smacks of partisan bias on the part of a couple of wiki editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder J (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

An article in Governing Magazine has questioned the factual content of articles on US polticians on Wikipedia, cting this article in particular. I've gone through and cleaned up the article, adding references or {{fact}} tags where necessary. Please assist in further improving this article so we can't be criticised like this again. Thanks. Harr o5 03:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That article is a bit of a red-herring (calling Wikipedia a blog?!?!). When dealing with an individual of her recent notariety, there isn't exactly a mountain of source material to work with. This is compounded by the fact that most of her coverage has been local and the local news outlets often want $$$ to read their archives, if they are even available. Sometimes a press release is about as good as it gets. Maybe someone near the University of Kansas could go to their library and dig up some deadtree or microfiche sources? Otherwise, you may be able to get some, albeit partisan, information from the DGA. I mean, what do they want us to do, shut down Wikipedia? That doesn't sound very democratic to me. No, this sounds like more like journalistic turf warring to me. This isn't to say that the article couldn't be improved, but their analysis is a bit overblown. --Dragon695 15:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see someone else has turned that up, probably from the same source ("John Street")! 68.39.174.238 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Since people can delete our sourced statements about Governor Sebelius, we should be able to delete unsourced statements. For instance, someone wrote that, "Some have also mentioned that in 2010 she may seek to become the first Democrat from Kansas to serve in the United States Senate since 1939. ^[1]" The reference cited is a list of past and current Kansas senators; not something mentioning that Governor Sebelius may run for the Senate. It's time to ask why that remarked wasn't deleted yet some of ours have been for silly reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder J (talk • contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bilderberg appearance

Governor Sebelius's appearance at the 2007 Bilderberg Group meeting in Istanbul clearly is significant to her political future. Not many American politicians are invited to this annual secret meeting on earth and includes a great number of the most powerful businessmen, politicians, and academics from around the world. See the article on the group for more information. Bill Clinton appeared by invitation of Vernon Jordan in 1991, and one year later was elected President of the United States. Senator John Edwards appeared in 2004, and shortly thereafter was chosen as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee for the 2004 election. Many politicians' Wikipedia articles mention their attendance at Bilderberg meetings, which clearly is a fact of great significance. That Governor Sebelius was invited to and attended an event such as this is similarly significant. It was correctly cited, was not frivolous, and should not have been removed. I have replaced it. 65.66.153.99 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

I included information about the Don't Drop the Soap controversy currently surrounding Governor Sebelius. It was deleted as being "unconstructive." I did make an open call for more information, but the facts I listed were cited, verifiable, and address a serious issue, which is the appropriateness of making light of prison rape and the son of a governor selling and making a profit off of said joke. It is appropriate because Governor Sebelius is responsible for the operation of Kansas State prisons and her son is selling a game called "Don't Drop the Soap" out of the Governor's mansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.173.152 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is way to large in comparison with the rest of the entry on Sebelius. This is a small news story that was strange enough to make it's rounds amongst national print media as well as the internet. People are forgetting this story as I type, and it will be but a blip, remembered by almost no one in a week or two. 70.179.185.190 (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. This article has a significant section on hearsay regarding her chances of being named a vice-presidential running mate for Obama. Many people have noted that this article on Governor Sebelius is considered uneven regarding praise while neglecting some of her errors. Do you see anything about her comparing driving on Missouri highways to 9/11? Unlike that weird comparison, the Don't Drop the Soap issue will last. You have to list the good with the bad. My question to you is why you are willing to see an article about a politician that is so unbalanced.--141.116.173.152 (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the article having criticisms, and having balanced coverage. Honestly, her comment regarding Missouri highways I feel was a bigger story than this Don't Drop the Soap oddity. At least that was something about her, and not her son. The only reason I was even aware of this story was that I check the weird news section on my phone each day. I will just have to disagree with you that this is a significant story regarding Gov Sebelius. As of now, I don't even think most people in Kansas are aware of this story. If you really feel like the article is unbalanced, why not add some relevant information regarding some of her more controversial decisions and political opinions? For example, she has signed into law in-state tuition for illegal aliens that graduate from a Kansas HS. At least that is something both significant and regarding her actual governorship.70.179.185.190 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Her reaction has offended Kansans, where it has generated more coverage than the weird news section in your area. As a governor, she is a leader. Leaders set the tone. The fact that she would publicly state that she is proud of her son's creativity about prison rape while people are being sexually assaulted in the prisons that she oversees makes the story about her. Another way to look at it is that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with her husband's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, yet her wiki page has a couple of paragraphs devoted to it. Saying that the governor's son's action has no bearing on the governor's image would mean that the Lewinsky story and how people perceived Hillary because of it is inappropriate on Hillary's wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.173.152 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

70.179.185.190 is right. dont drop the soap is anything but note-worthy. it doesn't even have to do with her. perhaps some kansans were offended in some way, kinda sorta, but its not even close to being within wiki policy. put it on her son's wiki if it's within wiki policy. Aceholiday (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coal plants

Someone familiar with the story needs to add coverage of her veto of bills to build two coal-fired electric plants in Kansas. Fitzaubrey (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speech earlier this year?

I keep reading things like "she didn't do well in her speech earlier this year" ^[2] but the article does not refer to this. There's a reference to a speech in reply to Bush's State of the Union speech — is that it? — but nothing about the reaction. If I had seen such comments once, I would not have written anything, but it seems to recur so it is perhaps worth considering addressing the point in the article. m.e. (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Novak

I don't think it's appropriate to just cherrypick this vague statement from Novak regarding some abortion doc donating to a national Democratic group which then donated to a group that Sebelius runs. It's an incredibly weak statement, hardly notable at all. Novak's column is a commentary/opinion piece and not a news piece by the way. This item doesn't appear to be picked up anywhere else by any reliable sources. So I see no way in which it belongs in the article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Novak's article per se is not notable. However, the comments and actions of Naumann are notable based upon the fact that Naumann's comments and actions will have affect on Obama VP running selection process. Notability of Naumann's comments and actions is also based upon many, many other reporters and news sources have picked on Sebelius' abortion support as either a potential negative or potential positive for a choice of Sebelius for running mate.--InaMaka (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archbishop's Action

Re: the Archbishop's actions....

If the actions are notable, then entries that factually contextualize the actions may also be notable.

If no entries that contextualize the Archbishop's actions are notable, then the Archbishop's actions themselves are not notable.

Therefore, it is either appropriate to put the Archbishop's actions in a broader context, or it is appropriate to delete mention of the Archbishop's actions.

One does not need to be an edit-warrior to follow this chain of reasoning. To the contrary.

Deleting entire chains of revisions without specific criticism is vandalism. I'm eager to resolve this dispute constructively. But to do so, we need to consider specific entries, without relying on subjective and dogmatic estimates of who's "minor, minor, minor" and who's notable. Catuskoti (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

Dear Catuskoti: I have noticed that your edit history indicates you have only just started with Wikipedia and you have been editting merely one article, Gov. Sebelius's article--except for just one edit in May of this year on the Bardot article. Please let me explain that you have made edit which clearly violated Wikipedia rules. For example you have added POV material by changing abortion section of Sebelius' article. When there was a reference to adding restrictions to the abortion laws in Kansas you changed that to "criminalizing abortion." You did not provide a citation to support such a commentary, therefore, without a citation the change must be assumed to be your commentary. You can review that inappropriate, POV-pushing edit here: Catuskoti's addition of the POV laden word "criminalize". The Archbishop's comments are notable because they will have an affect on the VP selection process of Obama. Everyone here admits that, even MaximusVeritas. Now, I thought Novak's comments were notable but I came to agree with MaximusVeritas that the Archbishop's actions and comments are the source of Novak's article so therefore the Archbishop stays and Novak goes. Please edit within the prevailing concensus. Also, when I revert clearly POV material such as the use of "criminalize" I am not engaging in vandalism. Your charge is groundless. Oh, by the way, Wikipedia editting is a series of debates about what is notable and what is not notable so your comment above ("without relying on subjective and dogmatic estimates of who's "minor, minor, minor" and who's notable") is off point. Welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy the process. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear InaMaka: Thanks for the welcome and wishes. "Criminalizing" was meant to be less euphemistic and POV-ish than the relatively lengthier and indirect expression, "restricting legal access to" -- unlike the latter, it has considerable technical history. I've added a Wikilink to address your concern.Catuskoti (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

Fair enough. I understand your logic. "Criminalizing" is much shorter, but the problem that I have with the word is that the word "criminalizing" has negative connotations that outweight any benefit that a shorter phrasing might bring to the article. The longer phrase is used to eliminate any negative or positive connotation being projected by the Wikipedia editors. Also, a wikilink does not solve the POV issue. Citing back to Wikipedia is not a reliable source outside of Wikipedia. Maybe a better phrasing should be "restricting access to" instead of "restricting legal access to". Also, the overlong and detailed explanation that the edited version has is way beyound what is appropriate for Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not familiar with the negative connotations that you think 'criminalization' bears and worry that aversion may arise just from an attempt at doublespeak. How about shifting from "criminalizing" to "prohibiting access to?"

Better yet --> "through the state prohibition of" Catuskoti (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

2. Your expression, "the overlong and detailed explanation that the edited version has" is sadly too vague to be intelligible. Be specific, please. All best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

InaMaka: I don't have a raffle ticket in the hat of whether the Archbishop's actions are notable or not. My conceptual stake is that if they are, then it must be possible to make notes about them. The consensus is that any such notes are overkill. You rightly observe that the archbishop's actions are laden with political angles. To include only one of these political anglings without allowing factual notes about its broader context would amount to insisting that only one POV can be included. Allowing only one POV does not promote NPOV. Therefore, given the current consensus, the Archbishop's political actions are not notable. All best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

EsKog: Then how about 1) deleting the quotes etc. from Catholic Democrats and National Catholic Reporter, but simply stating something like, "Some in the Catholic Media dispute the religious bases of the Archbishop's action," and then provide links to NCR & Catholic Democrats as reference, and 2) stating that "Section blah, blah in the Conference of US Bishops document XXXX outlining abortion policymaking does not definitively answer the question," with the document stated as reference. I didn't do #2 before because I didn't want to editorialize. All best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

[edit] Abortion edit war

Hey, can we have some discussion or third party feedback on this edit war that's messing up the section on Abortion? From my perspective, I've put hours into a good faith effort providing details of Sebelius' policy re: abortion. One user has repeatedly deleted these edits, along with those of other bystanders, on 13 June @ 00:48, and 12 June @ 23:08, 19:26, 15:49, and 2:03. The user has also refused to resolve the issue on the Talk page. I'm new to Wikipedia and am personally finding this very frustrating and abusive, and it's sure not making me want to stick with this new Wiki hobby. Will 3rd parties with more experience kindly intervene & provide a bit of perspective? Thanks and best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

I'm not an uninvolved third party, but it occurs to me that I haven't really weighed in here. I think that it is probably worth mentioning that Baumann objects to Sebelius's actions regarding abortion rights. However, just because it merits a mention doesn't mean we need to spend several paragraphs going into detail about Catholic theology, or how a lot of other folks reacted. This is a notable, but not defining, aspect of Sebelius's recent political history. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor appears to have violated WP:3RR at this point, whatever the merits of any content dispute. I would urge them to self-revert and take any discussion to the talk board, lest they be the subject of an administrative account block. I would leave a warning on the editor's talk page but we have had run-ins before and I do not wish to deal. Wikidemo (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure that we can come to some constructive resolution (maybe in the talk section above?). The problem, from my perspective now and before, is not that material is being edited, but that it is being deleted en masse, often times, particularly when InaMaka does it, going back multiple generations of edits. Catuskoti (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

I see that on his talk page the editor has accused you of violating 3RR too. If that's true you're both subject to being blocked, but you can sometimes avoid that by expressing (probably there and/or here) a desire to work together and a promise that you're not going to continue edit warring. Again - I'm offering no opinion on content, just on avoiding bad feelings and disruption. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe -- I honestly didn't think I was edit-warring, just following a logical consequences; certainly not making the same edit over, over, and over again. But what the hey. It looks like there might be some progress on the issue in the above section. I would like all that work that InaMaka reverted to be restored, irrespective of whether the ArchBishop's comments are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catuskoti (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy over the next few days, but if I have time I'll try to work up a revised version of the section that tries to accommodate where we're all coming from. I think starting fresh would be more useful than continuing to revert one another. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to other editors here for my inappropriate behavior. Please trust that it stemmed from ignorance about Wiki norms and won't be repeated, aside from the usual messinesses of learning processes. All best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

Is there a consensus here about the notability of the delayed payment of the Tillman reception? Maybe it's just that I'm accustomed to state bureaucratic delays, but it strikes me as undue weight in an encyclopedia entry about Sebelius' political position on abortion. Feedback would be appreciated. All best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

[edit] Cato Institute labeling

Why is it necessary to label the Cato Institute as "a libertarian think tank"? Especially since it is Wiki-linked. It was labeled in this article as "right-wing" but I removed that, as Cato shares little with what is usually called right-wing. My question is if we label Cato, shouldn't we also label Time Magazine, or maybe use phrases like these: "leftist Thomas Frank's bestseller" or "The liberal Washington Post." What is the guidance on this? DreamPipes (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay to include a neutral 1-2 word adjective for purposes of identification. Many people don't know what the Cato Institute is. Some might have it in the back of their heads and be reminded; others aren't going to click on the link anyway so we can at least indicate what it is generally. It's pretty common here to identify people and things, e.g. you might say "German auto parts manufacturer Hella KGaA Hueck & Co." or "18th Century Italian philosopher Guido Grandi". You don't really have to say what Time Magazine is because everyone presumably knows but if you did it might be "American news weekly, Time Magazine". If it can be kept short, informative, and neutral, no harm. I don't think Cato Institute would mind being referred to as a "libertarian think tank", and that's an accurate summation. Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)