Talk:Kathleen Sebelius/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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

The picture of her in the helicopter is terrible - shades of Dukakis in the tank. If you actually support her, I would change the photograph asap. Fkaser (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This picture really needs to be changed - What about this one:http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/images/2008/05/09/kathleen_sebelius.jpg? 128.32.218.218 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably copyrighted, unless we can get a release from the photographer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I found a better one on Commons, although it's a bit outdated. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Harro5 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)

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. " 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)

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)

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)

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)

Speech earlier this year?

I keep reading things like "she didn't do well in her speech earlier this year" 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)

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)

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

I agree with that change. Like you, I don't think there's anything earth-shattering about it taking a long time to get money from a government organization. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the only reason we know of the event is because of the delay in payment? DreamPipes (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The references suggest that the delayed payment was discovered only after Operation Rescue, etc. investigated the event. Catuskoti (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti

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)

I think "libertarian think tank" is a very reasonable description and one that would be accepted by the people at Cato themselves. I think "right-wing" would be a ludicrous label for them, for a number of reasons. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eeeeeww

There is a picture on the web of Obama kissing her. Eeewwwww. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.141.212 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a message board. GageSkidmore (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK

This edit is coatracking Obama content into the article whose topic is supposed to be Kathleen Sebelius. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is about Sebelius. She IS the sixth senior level person nominated by Obama that has tax issues. It could NOT be MORE about Sebelius. There is no information in the article about the other five nominees, just Sebelius. It is a relevant topic and it is only ONE sentence. Now, you have raised the issue. You need to provide justification for its removal.--InaMaka (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) So Obama has had other nominees with tax issues - what does THAT have to do with Sebelius? (You cant possibly be suggesting that she purposefully submitted inaccurate tax returns so that she would be more likely to be considered by the Obama team.) The number of nominees with tax issues is Obama nomination process content thrown into this article. WP:COATRACK.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Of course, I'm not stating that. I am making the point that I did NOT add the names of the other five people to the article. But I did add the FACT that is the sixth person. It is relevant to her nomination process because of the previous five her tax mistakes are going to get a larger review than normal. Now, you have not provided a reason for deleting the whole section yet. I have shown that my sources are reliably sourced and notable and on topic. I have shown that I have not given undue weight because I only focused ONE sentence on the Obaman thing. I have provided ALL of this information and yet you have provided nothing except repeated attempts to remove the good faith work of another Wikipedian.--InaMaka (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"because of the previous five her tax mistakes are going to get a larger review than normal" Then find a source that makes that particular analysis. WP:SYN. (see below for description of my edit actions.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I will not. The article does not state that--I only made that claim on this talk page. You want to control this discussion by attempting to make me go out and find articles and come back to you for your approval. That is not the topic of this discussion. You want to delete my work. Start providing a reason for your attempts to delete whole sections of work. I have not heard that yet. She is the sixth person nominated by Obama to have tax issues. This is a fact. Please provide a reason for the deletion.--InaMaka (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

you dont have to - someone else did -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN - placement of that comment in the article is an attempt to make a connection that is not in the original source, (or if the connection is in the original source, it needs to be spelled out as coming from that source). As the editor wishing to include material, the WP:BURDEN is actually on you to show that the content you wish to enter is relevant. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Both these statements are not entirely true. I basically quoted the original source directly. The original source specifically points out the FACT that Sebelius is the sixth Obama nominee to have tax issues. I'm not making any other claim other than what the original source states. As for burden, I have met my burden. I have pointed out that the source is reliable. I have pointed out the topic is notable. (There are over 1,500 articles in today's paper on the topic alone.) And I have treated the topic with brevity, not undue weight. Since I have met these criteria, the burden return to you to provide a reason for your desire to delete reliably sourced, notable information that is not placed in the article with a undue weight. You do have a burden also. Even the Red Pen of Doom must follow certain rules and that includes having to justify your desire to delete relevant, reliably sourced, notable information.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The simple FACT that she is the 6th Obama nominee with issues is irrel to this article. We need a source to make that connection, not a wikipedia editor, and not just throwing things into the article just because they appear in a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see anything wrong with InaMaka's contributions. Sebelius's tax oversights are a notable aspect of her nomination, as they are prominently covered in numerous reliable sources (see http://news.google.com/news?q=kathleen+sebelius). Given that, devoting a brief section to the issue seems well within the acceptable parameters of WP:DUE. I also support inclusion of the sentence "Sebelius is the the sixth senior Obama nominee to reveal tax problems", as that has also been a significant feature of the coverage she is currently receiving from reliable sources. Emw2012 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In all of the recent publications, the nearest I could find of anyone making any relevant connection of the number of Obama appointees with tax issues to KS is the following from the LA times:

"It was not immediately clear how the disclosure would affect her prospects for Senate confirmation to the Cabinet post. Her unpaid taxes were substantially smaller than those of former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was forced to withdraw as Obama's Health and Human Services nominee in February after it was disclosed that he had failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.

But Republicans, already leery of Obama's healthcare overhaul plans, may give the tax matter a thorough airing when Sebelius appears before the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday. A confirmation vote by the full Senate is expected later this month."

But "it is not immediately clear" is hardly encyclopedic. And the fact that it may be an issue for the republicans is based on Sebelius' other political views, not the fact that other Obama appointtees have had tax issues. Pehaps later there will be someone who actually makes such a connection and the comment can be included then. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah. It is not going to be removed because you have not provided ANY rationale for your desire to delete. You just have stated that you want to delete and you have provided a series of inadequate arguments such as starting out with simply blindly removing the whole section without discussion or warning--just an inappropriate series of deletions. Only after I asked you a series of times to begin a discussion concerning your deletions on the talk page did you. Then you stated that you can remove the whole section if violates undue weight. And well that argument was found to be wanting considering it is only one sentence. Then you attempted to make the argument that it is irrelevant. But of course that argument does not hold water because Sebelius is an Obama nominee so her tie to Obama is irrefutable. Also, article after article after article on the Internet discusses her tax problems and the tax problems of Obama's other nominees. I counted over 500 articles today alone. I quoted and cited a Chicago Tribune article that is entitled "Sebelius and taxes: Health Secretary-designate Kathleen Sebelius, latest pick for President Barack Obama's Cabinet, to reveal tax problems." The connection cannot get any more clear than that. You also attempted, unsuccessfully of course, to make the argument that you do not have to meet any burden or rationale on why you want to remove reliably sourced, notable, on point information--which we all know is just a silly argument. Every editor must provide rationale and you must discuss it with the other editors whether they are adding information or as in your case engaging in a wholesale removal without discussion.--InaMaka (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From David Goldstein in the Miami Herald: Add Sebelius to list of Obama Cabinet picks with tax troubles--InaMaka (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From Barb Shelley in the Kansas City Star: Now Sebelius has tax problems.--InaMaka (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From Sarah Rubenstein in the Wall Street Journal: Sebelius Runs Into Tax Problems, But Daschle’s Were Bigger.--InaMaka (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From Brian Montopoli on the CBS News website: Another Obama Nominee Has Tax Issues--InaMaka (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From Robert Pear in the New York Times: Sebelius Pays Back Taxes--InaMaka (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles mention that other nominees have had tax issues, but none of them make any actual connection to sebelius herself/her particular nomination process which is the topic of this article. The topics are stated as discrete facts with no analysis connecting them. No one has made your connection above -that because she is the 6th one she will face harder scrutiny, which is surprising. There are a few that hint subtly that because the amount is so much lower than the previous $140K of previous nominees with issues that hers is a non-issue, but none directly make that claim. There are many many many that state that her polical views will be much more important than any tax issue - but none of them connect the tax issue to the fact that other nominees have had tax issues. Heres some that do make an actual connection, but they are all blogs (and aparently some blocked by spam filter):

• http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20090402/COLUMN0704/904020325/1125/OPINION
• http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/lone_republican/?p=500&srvc=home&position=recent
• sovereignsociety.com/2009Archives1stHalf/040109In2009EveryDayisAprilFoolsDay/tabid/5520/Default.aspx

Now that we have [2] sources saying things like "The tax issue, revealed March 31, prompted no questions during the hearing." Are you willing to say that in hindsight, there is not a need for a seperate section on tax issue? (aka, just casue theres lots of buzz, doesnt mean its relevant) -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the section will stay. The article does NOT state that she will have a tougher time in approval. You are attempting to make an argument to save face after you made a series of unsubstantive arguments, that all ultimately failed. She is the sixth nominee with tax issues that is a fact and it is supported a series of reliable sources and will stay.--InaMaka (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please dont comment on my motives. I have no need to "save face". In six months the article will evolve to place the "tax issue" into the perspective that I proposed earlier. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you have the ability to see into the future. We don't know that you what you predict will happpen. Right now, what you propose cannot be justified and I don't see how you know so clearly that six months from now the article will not state what it does right now. You don't know. Also, the passage of time does not change the fact that Sebelius is the sixth Obama nominee to have tax issues. That is a fact and it does not change over time. Well, good for you. You have pointed out to me and other editors exactly where you will attempt to take the article. I will be monitoring your edits.--InaMaka (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You didnt get the six month consolation prize of a crystal ball that allows you to forsee that over a period of 6 months the article of a prominent political appointee evolves to place trivial events into perspective as new events occur? Thats too bad, someone should check in on the membership committees work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From a previous discussion

It is not appropriate to just revert whole sections. Please use the talk section.--InaMaka (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

If a section gives undue weight to a particular topic, it is clearly appropriate to remove the section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It is ALWAYS inappropriate to removed reliably sourced, notable information in an article in good faith. You need to assume good faith. Also, please do not engage in an edit war concerning the Kathleen Sebelius article. The information that I added was fully and completely reliably sourced and notable, considering how much coverage the issue is receiving in the media and how many of Obama's other nominees have had tax issues. Please use the talk page and cease immediately your inappropriate behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If a section gives undue weight to a particular topic, it is clearly appropriate to remove the section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. But in this specific instance there is a disagreement and therefore you and I need to discuss on the talk page. That is what the talk page is for, to discuss disagreements on how to develop the article. When you merely delete whole sections that I put in the article without discussing it then you are violating the basic principle of Wikipedia which is assume good faith and treat each other with respect. So I will repeat again. Do not engage in an edit war and use the talk page to discuss the reliably sourced, notable information that I placed in the Sebelius article concerning her tax issues. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who is wholesale reverting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That comment is flat out wrong. I placed the reliably sourced, notable information in the article in the first place. You are the one deleting it. I am adding and you are eliminating and now you claim that I am deleting your work? That is backward and wrong. You have not placed any information in the article. You just eliminating it.--InaMaka (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at the history: You added a section on tax issues. [3] I reverted on the basis of WP:UNDUE weight and the fact that the tax issue was already covered in the article. [4] You reverted to your version. [5] I left your newly created section but removed a sentance that commented on the number of Obama nominees with tax issues under WP:COATRACK. [6] You returned the full content of your initial edit. [7] So no, I do not take back my analysis that you are the one who is doing wholesale reversions. And I resent your implications that my edits are somehow Not in Good faith.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the tax section needs to be expanded on or removed because it doesn't answer the "so what?" test. There is nothing intuitively obvious about being the sixth one with tax issues. If there is some greater meaning, such as the more difficult confirmation alluded to above, say so and add a source. If not, there is no reason for the text to be there. -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

HHS delay

Does anyone know what is taking so damn long for her to be confirmed? She is the last cabinet designate not confirmed and sworn in, and she's been the nominee for several months. I know about the tax thing (that is already discussed) and read some vague mention of uncertainty in the Kansas legislature over how her absence will play out, but haven't found anything that would constitute a substantive reason for this delay. Does anyone have info on this? It should be in the article. The Sartorialist (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama hasn't even been President for several months. More to the point, Sebelius was only announced as the nominee on February 28. In the following month, she was investigated and had hearings before two committees. The first hearing was on March 31, and the second on April 2. She has not been voted out of committee since then because the Senate had a full day of voting on the third, then left D.C. until April 20. Presumably, she will be confirmed within a week or two thereafter. -Rrius (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A month and a half, my mistake. I can't turn up anything in the news for an investigation in March, so I don't know the nature of the investigation (the back taxes??) or why it delayed her confirmation hearings. The break until April 20 makes sense, but do you know of any sources that describe the investigation and why it caused postponement of the hearings until the Senate hiatus? The Sartorialist (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Every nominee is investigated by the FBI and by the relevant committee or committees. The committee investigation includes hearings and written questions to the nominee. The other nominees were announced in November and December so that the investigations could take place before January 20. As for the confirmation hearings, they took place before the break: on March 31 and April 2, as noted above. Given that the day after the second hearing was a vote fest on budget amendments, she was never going to reach the full Senate and be confirmed on April 3. Again as noted earlier, the Senate adjourned that day until April 20. So far, there is no delay. We'll just have to see how long it takes after the Senate comes back into session next week. -Rrius (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbering as HHS Secretary

This article states that Kathleen Sebelius is the 9th Secretary of Health and Human Services, however, her official biography from the Department of Health and Human Services, which I recently added to the "External links" section of this article states that she is the 21st Secretary of Health and Human Services. I have initiated a dicussionon on this matter, citing this article as an example, at Talk:United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. Please feel free to comment on this matter on that Talk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected this article based upon the discussion at Talk:United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Drone

Speach covered by cspan Feb. 8, 2010, delivered to National Health Policy Conference. If anyone was awake after this drone of a speech, I would be surprised. Some one in her office needs to get her to listen to her delivery. It was awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.199.177 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion"

This article uses the term "pro-life". In some cases the term wasn't used in the source.

I know people who call themselves "pro-life", and they also oppose abortion, capital punishment, and war. I accept that usage.

But these organizations are only anti-abortion. I'd like to know why they should be called "pro-life".

What do you call somebody who kills an abortion doctor? I don't think he's "pro-life". --Nbauman (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Archbishop's action

While perhaps the Archbishop's actions may not be of note. I do think it is factually important to understand the nature of Sebelius' relationship to the Catholic Church. Namely, she professes to be a member, but the Church does not see her as such. Canon Law indicates that any politician who openly supports abortion is automatically excommunicated. That is celar enough and can be cited if need be. In the mean time, I simply changed the religious affiliation in the side bar to "Excommunicated Catholic" and the lin to excommunication so the reader can have a beter sense of what the affiliation means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.187.172 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Religious status

Before this page was protected, there was some back-and-forth about the religion tag in her personal details. While she does claim to be a Catholic, her actions and professed opinions run directly contrary to those of the Church, and as such, the Church has excommunicated her. I feel that it is important to mention this in her bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.16.78 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Even putting aside the fact that your claim that she was excommunicated is factually incorrect, Wikipedia goes by religious self-identification, not by the claims of third parties about the religious beliefs of living people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Add info to "Early life" section

Please add her kids. They are Ned(1982) and John(1985). Source is http://www.nndb.com/people/369/000044237/ . Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.75.65 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Added, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

She is no longer "Incumbent" 71.34.156.97 (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Violation of the Hatch Act

instead of the soft pedaled "Hatch Act concerns" that section should be entitled "Violation of The Hatch Act" as these serious matters that other gov't officials (in the Bush admin) have been FIRED for. WP shows its bias in articles like these and you have have no credibility because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.208.103.74 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

At this point, Sebelius has been charged with the violation, not found guilty of it. Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies prevent us from making these sorts of assertions, and if you find comparable policy violations in articles on Bush officials, by all means bring them to wider attention. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)