Talk:Margaret Spellings

Secretary of Education Section
"Since her appointment, Spellings has worked diligently to advance the cause of public school reform through her promotion of Christian values and public funding of religious schools." This is hardly an npov. Promotion of Christian values in government and public funding of religious schools, are hot button issues of both sides of those arguments. Removing the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyldraven (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, what was the reason for removing that? Because it's a "hot button" issue? KenFehling (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

PBS Section
I think that there might be some npov issues with the PBS section of this article. Specifically, stating that Margaret Spellings "embarassed herself and the nation" and accusing Spelling of conducting a "witchhunt". Additionaly, what is the point of specifiying Vermont as a "blue State"?

I also have NPOV issues with the statement regarding Spellings' "basic misunderstanding of Conn's objections to NCLB". This statement (along with the preceding paragraph) is aggressively thrown into the mix yet neither the objections to NCLB nor Spellings' misunderstanding of those objections is ever elaborated, linked to, or even mentioned. Is this just incomplete or what?

--IRelayer 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to be bold and edit the article. Is it incomplete? Most of Wikipedia is. --Sketchee 01:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * However, in the PBS section I couldn't find the quotes you mentioned. ??? --Sketchee 01:22, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well that is what I was asking...was there more to the story or is it just some quote that was found and pasted on there? As it stands, that quote (it is the last two sentences at the bottom of the article, not in the PBS section) is clearly not NPOV, but if there was another side to that quote, maybe that should be included as well. Here is the quote: "The comment stems from Spellings' basic misunderstanding of Connecticut's objections to NCLB, according to state officials. It might also be related to the fact that Connecticut did not vote for Bush, neither in 2000 nor in 2004." I have taken it out the entire thing for now, feel free to readd the original content but with a better formulation of the argument (to whoever wrote it). --IRelayer 22:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Young
Is the section about the Vince Young situation really relevant to this article? Is there anything that elevates that comment from the countless others she has made on probably thousands of topics? 134.68.143.167 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and think that it should be removed. Suvablee0506 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeopardy!
On November 21, 2006, she appeared on a Celebrity Jeopardy! episode of Jeopardy!. She is the first member of a president's cabinet to be on the show. Is that worthy of inclusion on her page? Jwolfe 10:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable Source?
Is there a verifyable source for this edit? It seems that this page gets a lot of Linda Christas related spam, odd that Spellings would explicitly mention an Christas organization otherwise unknown to google... Pete.Hurd 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the transcript of her appearance on Lehrer: . The first section appears, the last paragraph (that mentions Christas) does not. What a surprise. I'm pulling that paragraph. - Richfife 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Put the Quotation Back

 * You guys can pull whatever you want in terms of Linda Christas, but the Post mentioned Waldorf and that's why I put the thing there. I've seen a lot of goofball stuff said about Linda Christas on this site. You fellows seem to make a lot of assumptions. For example, you people seem to think you are smart by monitoring IP addresses for what you call sock puppies, wnen in fact many schools pool servers and therefore would be within the same IP block of addresses. Let's put the Post quote back. Looks like we have a bunch of amateurs who get their kicks by removing whatever is not politically acceptable to them. FredLevine 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph. Please leave Waldorf alone

 * I did an archive search of all Connecticut Post articles from 2001 to present on the keyword "waldorf". No relevant matches whatsoever. Here's the link if you want to do your own search: . It's not politics, it's WP:VERIFIABILITY. - Richfife 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you ladies understand that less than 20% of the information in print makes it to a search engine at all. I guess not. What we end up with is an encyclopedia which reflects only what you ladies can find. And, even when you can find it, evidently it doesn't matter, as in the case of Linda Christas I understand. Even with a Templeton Prize winner lending his name to that school, I hear that you ladies didn't think that that was verifiable or something. At any rate, you ladies let kindergartens, dozens of them, on Wikipedia without checking a darn thing, but try to put a school like Waldorf or Linda Christas on Wikipedia, and the ladies have a problem with that. Please, at least let's not pretend to be sophisticated here. (I am aware of at least one Wikipedia editor who is a violent ex-con. I wonder if your "verification" process picked that up. I wouldn't give him too much trouble if I were you. He likes to really put people away who disagree with him if you know what I mean. FredLevine 09:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know the issue date, section and page # of the article you are referencing then? If you are going to cite the article, then you need to include that. Otherwise it's not a cite. Thank you. - Richfife 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, many news sources are not available online like you said, however, the Connecticut Post is not one of them. Their entire article history going back to the Clinton administration is available online. And there's no mention of Waldorf or Linda Christas. The paper has not mentioned either organization since at least 1999. You cited them by name, not me. Linda Christas has a long history of posting inaccurate information on Wikipedia. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in this case there's very little doubt in my mind to work with. - Richfife 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am thrilled to hear that a violent ex-con is editing. Which editor is this? Which part of the world is he in? How is he relevant to this article? Also, I'm sure that all of us ladies and female impersonators would like to thank FredLevine for the gentlemanly way in which he refers to his fellow-editors as "ladies": such politeness is all too rare in the talk pages of Wikipedia. And now, back to the subject of editing this article. -- Hoary 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) .... PS Oh no! Wait! I forget, a lot of people here are terribly spoilsporty and even litigious, and might view my earlier question as something like "incitement to libel" or whatever. So please don't tell me, or anyone, who this violent ex-con is. Anyway, it's much more fun to guess. Moreover, it occurs to me that (i) if a violent con can contribute greatly to what would later become the OED (as happened), there's no obvious reason why an violent ex-con can't contribute greatly to WP; and (ii) WP's editors obviously include so many thousands of people, and so many oddballs and flakes, that it's extremely likely that violent ex-cons are among them: that there is one among them is really no surprise. So my earlier thrill has entirely evaporated, I'm afraid. -- Hoary 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Show
From the article: "She has been the only active member of the Bush Administration to appear on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, as of her appearance on May 22, 2007."

I'm pretty sure there have been other active members of the Dubya Administration to appear on Jon Stewart's show at least since then. Press Secretary Dana Perino was on the show last week. Perhaps that should be clarified to read "… members of the Bush Cabinet"? MicahBrwn (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush Center
Margaret, you sent me mail and the answer to your mail is that I have already informed Pres. George and Laura Bush that my husband passed away and that I am living on social security Please do not send me any more mail asking me to donate for I have to pay my own bills and take care of myself. Roxine Booker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.63.86 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Margaret Spellings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060203093117/http://www.houstonisd.org:80/HISD/portal/article/front/0,2731,20856_67359489_94477637,00.html to http://www.houstonisd.org/HISD/portal/article/front/0,2731,20856_67359489_94477637,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070508193141/http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/04/student.loans.education.reut/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/04/student.loans.education.reut/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Margaret Spellings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110519224450/http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/08/opposing-view-o.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/08/opposing-view-o.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)