Talk:Lisa Murkowski/Archive 1

March 2008 comments
I removed "She claims to be a Roman Catholic, but this is contradicted by her position on abortion" as this is a very controversial statement. It implies that being Catholic naturally rules out being pro-choice. I don't know what her view is on abortion, or anything about her faith. It also implies that being Catholic, but pro-choice, is somehow hypocritical.

I don't know if I'm putting this note in the right place, but I wanted to tell other Wikipedians who might be working on this article that I'm helping to copyedit it. So far I've finished the Introduction and the first two sections. Kathy (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity: The first paragraph above, about removing a controversial sentence, is not mine. There were no initials, so it looked like my note was part of it. I do agree with what he or she wrote, though (whoever wrote it). Kathy (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just spent several hours reworking the Policy and Issues section. I removed the banner that said the section needed extra work for grammar, cohesion, etc. I think it's much better now, but it still does not read as smoothly as I would like. I think I've done as much as I can with it, though, so if anyone else wants to take a look at it, feel free. 69.249.39.224 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First amendment lasted only this far?
The nepotism issue is totally censored from this article. The founding fathers likely propeller in their graves. They would curse USA if they saw this happen. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this text from the bio section: o. --LeRoi (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Financial disclosure
Is the 2008 financial disclosure notable enough to be included in the article? If no one objects I'm going to remove it. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

May turn Libertarian
According to this article:, she is considering switching to the Libertarian Party if she ends up losing the disputed primary to Joe Miller. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
As with any encyclopedia entry, the introduction should be very concise. Stating that she is a Senator from Alaska is sufficient. Information about electoral histories must be placed in the body of the article. If this were not the case, then all of her elections should be placed in the introduction, which clearly would not make sense. Consistent changes by InaMaka have been made several times now, and further changes by this user will be forwarded to admin for account/I.P. address block.Myownworst (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF? This is what you call a discussion.  You state a rule that you made up and you tell everyone that this is the way that it is going to be. Period.  No discussion. No debate. Just the comments of one Wikipedian.  AND if anyone dare to think the introduction should have other information in the intro then the editor Myownworst threatens to get an admin.  Myownworst's rule is NOT consistent with a ton of Wikipedia articles about politicians. For example there is Alan Mollohan and Bob Dole and George H. W. Bush and John Kerry and Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush and Mark Udall and Mel Martinez and David Paterson and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mark Begich and Lyndon B. Johnson and Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez and Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum and Kay Hagan and Barbara Boxer and on and on and on.  I could pull down another hundred more examples of where electoral results are listed in the introduction.  Myownworst gave me a lecture on my talk page about discussing edits before making them. But of course myownworst did not follow his own advice when made the edit in discussion in this article.  He just did it and then put in the edit summary the remark that if another changes his edit then he will run to an admin.  WTF????  myownworst needs to review:  Consensus.  Why?  Because just making up a rule and then threatening to run an admin if someone does not agree is no way to obtain consensus.  Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved.  When an editor such as myownworst just decides that Murkowski's recent electoral loss will not be in the introduction without discussion violates the principal in Wikipedia that we are to work toward consensus.  This edit is high-handed and it is direct contravention of hundreds of intros to other politicians.  Also, myownworst gave me a lecture on my talk page that was way, way, way out of bounds about "discussing my edits on the article's talk page"--the exact same editor that has basically told everyone who edits this article that he is not going to engage in discussion.  Once again, I ask WTF???  In light of the lack of input that I have received from myownworst (i.e., myownworst states: "I have made a decision and you will live with it or I'm going to an admin"), I am going to add Murkowski's primary loss in the intro.  The loss is worthy of being placed in the intro because it is probably the most significant event in Murkowski's career.  It is also significant in that it brings to an end a thirty year family dynasty in Alaska politics. myownworst needs to review WikiBullying.  His threat to run to an admin is basically a different form of an "no edit order"--his way or the highway.  Myownworst, go ahead and get an admin, let's rumble.--InaMaka (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I refuse to take sides in an edit war, but the recent primary is worthy of mention in the first paragraph, since it's now more than likely that she will be leaving the Senate in January. But that can be covered in one sentence: "Murkowski was defeated for renomination," etc. I can't believe I'm reading an argument including accusations of bad faith over where in an article something should go. Can both of you please turn it down a few notches? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love to drop the whole discussion. And I have not stated anything that I need to apologize for.  The debate about where the comment should be in the article is not what created the edit war. I believe that myownworst decided to go to my talk page and attack my abilities as an editor personally.  That's where the source of this is.  Also, I trimmed down the information in the intro in response to myownworst's comments, but that was not good enough for him.  He had to remove ALL references to the recent election which as heavy-handed and contrary to what has transpired in other politicans articles.--InaMaka (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add: Frank Murkowski was active in Alaska politics long before he was elected to the Senate in 1980; I'm not sure it's accurate to call it a "thirty-year" family political dynasty when it's actually longer than that. I'm also not sure that two people qualify as a "dynasty," in comparison to, for example, the Kennedy family, where multiple members of multiple generations have been elected or appointed to office. Now that's a dynasty. JTRH (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with your comments about the word "dynasty" and "30 year". I was merely directly quoting four or five recent newspaper articles on Murkowski's defeat and each of those articles stated "dynasty" and "30 year."  I completely agree that the Kennedy family run deserves the title "dynasty."  However, as I was typing I did think that considering that Alaska has only been a state since 1959 (51 years) and the Murkowskis have been in the U.S. Senate seat since 1981 (29 years)--56.86% of Alaska's existence--the word dynasty, for Alaska at least, does not seem all that off the mark.--InaMaka (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's almost as impressive as the fact that Daniel Inouye has been a Senator for more than 92% of the time that Hawaii has been a state. :) JTRH (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Only 1% behind Joe Miller via write-in for 2010
It seems Murkowski is still a viable candidate, via her write-in campaign. She's only 1% behind Joe Miller, it seems. I was about to add this 28 October story as a ref, with associated content about the corresponding write-in campaign. I refrained from doing so only because it would probably quickly become a broken link. The Guardian employs an annoying procedure of putting the date in their URLs and then moving the article to a different URL after a little time has passed. Does anyone who knows how to use webcite, or related archival services, want to add it?

Quote from article: "Miller is well ahead of the Democratic candidate, but Murkowski, though not officially on the ballot, has asked supporters to write in her name and that campaign has taken off. In a RealClear Politics poll average, she is only 1% behind Miller, who is on 35%." – OhioStandard  (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * after the election, "Write In Candidatates" is leading, Miller is second, McAdams is third ... 41%, 34%, 23% respectively. LATimes - get it now, before it hides behind a paywall. Since "Write in Canadidates" almost never get a noticeable percentage of votes, we can readily speculate with Reliable Sources to back it up, that it's almost all Murkowski, enough that non-Murkowski would make no difference in the write-in amounts. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)