Talk:Gale Norton

NPOV: Relationship to Jack Abramoff and his firm
The facts laid out in this section don't establish a relationship between Norton and Abramoff (or his firm). While one may very well exist / have existed, give better evidence or remove the section. Also, why does this section warrant roughly 1/3 of the entire article on Norton? Is a third of Norton's importance tied to the fact she appears in a photo with Abramoff or was the recipient of some letters the facts presented in the article never actually tie back to Abramoff?! - 69.205.121.0 20:32, 3 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks biased.--4.37.66.131 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Her department is at the heart of the Abramoff lobbying scandal. Her Interior Department has direct control of many activities of Indian tribes, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariannis Inland. This will be on her resume for the rest of her life. This isn't some $70,000 scandal like Henry Cisneros, with is certainly on his wiki page for the rest of his life. It is huge, involving over 100 million dollars. Her contact with Abramoff enabled this HUGE scandal. Without this connection the Indian tribes would not have given him any money. And Abramoff's illegal lobbying money helped elect Tom DeLay's troops. The money ties all of this up.

This scandal will be bigger than Watergate when it is all over.


 * You have to be kidding me, not only did she start CREA, which later became a tool for Abramoff's lobbying, she also knew Steve Giles who was being bribed by Abramoff. She is in the middle of the entire mess, but yeah I've been meaning to add more references, I've just been busy on some other projects.  But she's one of the most corrupt women in washington, it will be pretty easy to make a case for her relationship with Jack Abramoff through reputable sources.--M4bwav 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT completely neutral myself on this subject, but I think this article is fair, sticks with the known facts, awaiting resolution and certainty of the entire Ambramoff debacle. This is what I want any kind of encyclopedia to do even though complete neutrality is nearly impossible... It's not the SIZE of the Abramoff situation that is relevant, it is Norton's KNOWN involvement which has yet to be determined absolutely.Martha 06:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there might be the need to edit and add stuff into this article, the fact that Gale is now being hired by Shell oil as one of their chief counsel http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/28/news/international/rds.reut/index.htm?postversion=2006122807 That fact coupled with some legislation that she passed which gave much more profit to the oil industry should also be add to this article It's kinda hard to separate being biased and being factual when the fact itself is actually very fishy.

_____

The fact that the above editor regards being hired by Shell oil as "very fishy" speaks volumes about the above editors non-neutral POV.

Several comments above seem to be betting on the come: "it will be pretty easy to make a case" and "known involvement...which has yet to be determined absolutely."

If something has yet to be determined absolutely, I'd guess that it shouldn't be described as "known".

If it will "be pretty easy" to make a case, go ahead and make it. Why give ammunition to the belief that Wikipedia is the province of leftwing ideologues using it to push an agenda?

Bias??
I 100% agree!! Politics rule 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Failure to Source
These sentences currently on the page:

In the late 1970s, she was a member of the Libertarian Party and was nearly selected as its national director in 1980. Norton has been associated with a number of groups in the "wise use" or "free-market environmentalist" movement, such as the Political Economy Research Center, of which she is a fellow. As a lawyer, Norton wrote about some industries' "right to pollute."

are unsourced. Jackjump 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Added "citation needed" note on the "right to pollute" remark. It looks like a direct quote so somebody oughta provide a direct quote citation. KeithJonsn 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lacks context
from the current article:

" Before being named Interior Secretary in 2001, Norton was senior counsel at Brownstein, Hyatt & Farber, P.C., a Denver-based law firm. The firm was listed with the U.S. Congress as a lobbyist for NL Industries, formerly known as National Lead Company."

So? Why is this relevant? What about all their other clients? Where's the context? It looks like a fact introduced as a POV shifter. Jackjump 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Norton's tenure as Secretary of Interior
Can someone add some info regarding Norton's current employment status (according to CNN she is a lobbyist for the oil industry?) and the general direction of her department when she was the head of Interior Secretary? This type of info is certainly relevant here. I would add this myself but I am a terrible writer and I don't think I am completely neutral on this topic. 75.195.211.218 03:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. A good place to start might be the NRDC's Press Release from her 2006 resignation from NRDC: http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/060310a.asp Whatever the truth of this statement may be, it does hint that her tenure at NRDC was a controversial one, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.50.26 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been a year and a half and there is still no information listed about her dismal record as Secretary of the Interior. I am not skilled enough as a writer either, but I hope someone soon as a paragraph or two about her tenure. Read that press release, that would be a good place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.232.44 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo with Jack Abramoff
The relationship between Gale Norton and Abramoff has not been established as a corrupt one, and if it has then people need to start citing sources. So, with that being said, there is no need to include a picture of her with Abramoff. It doesn't add to the article in anyway and it suggests that she was in on the scandal (which can't be proved). So, I took the liberty of deleting the photo and the line about the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.185.138 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gale, please feel free to continue vandalizing your wiki article in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.232.7 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So Gale Norton may in fact have been corrupt and believed industries had a "right to pollute" but her not being a friend of the environment is not that surprising, considering the Bush administration's skewing to the far right or the conservative-libertarian notion that environmentalism is "optional" or that "environmental groups" are "corrupt" or "flawed." 2603:6000:C305:78DF:AB6A:D3EF:D1C4:EF2E (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gale Norton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717004732/http://brownvboard.org/dedication/remarks/norton.php to http://brownvboard.org/dedication/remarks/norton.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)