User talk:Wonder J

Re: "Censorship" at Kathleen Sebelius
I am not engaging in censorship, and am certainly not capable of such. I'm just removing material that is either (1) tangential commentary, or (2) unsourced language which is clearly meant to be damaging. Under no circumstances does it make sense for the article about a political figure to include commentary about how some group feels about prison rape. It's not a bias, it's just limiting the article to what is relevant. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not capable of censorship because, like you, I'm just another editor on Wikipedia. And since you asked, I am actually from Kansas and am well aware of the significance (or lack thereof) of this story. If you have a problem with the way Hillary Clinton's article is handled, then take your issue there, rather than disrupting another article to make that point. My central objection to the way you want to present the information is that this is not the article on prison rape, nor is it the article on John Sebelius. A brief mention, discussing the facts of the situation, is sufficient to cover it. If a reader wants to get the more sensationalized version of the story, there are plenty of right-wing blogs out there. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And in reply to your last comment: If her relatives are profiting from making fun of and even glamorizing crimes that occur in those prisons than that is part of her record of governance. It implicitly demonstrates how she implements prison policy. - This is patently absurd. Does a DUI by one of President Bush's daughters render him incapable of leadership on enforcement of drinking and driving? Of course not. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It does if he makes a statement praising his daughters' creativity for engaging in said action.
 * By the way, I believe DUI laws are State laws not federal law. If you have a problem with George Bush and something his daughters did seven years ago, then take your issue there, rather than trying to obfuscate my point.

Speculations
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.