Talk:Kathleen Sebelius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization. The citation is in: Christopher Swope (April 2006). "WIKI SKIRMISHES". Governing.

Contents 1 The Intro 2 Governor John Gilligan 3 Picture 4 gun rights 5 Facts

[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)

[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)

[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. 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)