Jump to content

Talk:Lisa Murkowski/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Minority contracting

The 8(a) minority contracting program has seen a 26 percent of the national program spent on one of the smallest states in population, Alaska. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Alaska-Native-Corporations-IGs-and-Issues-05653/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.168.100 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed information on this issue because the sources did not mention Murkowski. There might be a different article where the material would be more relevant.   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to Murkowski's vital role in 8(a) contracting that preceeded the link you removed did mention her role in 8(a) contracting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.168.100 (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The current version is certainly better than some of the previous edits on this subject, but I just read the supposed reference for this information and it mentions Murkowski's chief counsel but not the Senator herself, and I did not see the graph mentioned at all. I agree that this material may be better suited for another article. Perhaps the article on Alaska Native Corporations or at the 8(a) Business Development Program of the SBA article? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Washington Post series written by O Harrow does mention the Senator. The Post series did run during the 2010 campaign. Since the huge increase in funding ocurred on her watch, it is appropriate to keep this ref on her page. In addition, 8(a) contracting was a big issue in the 2010 campaign. The reference does not belong exclusively under 8(a) or Alaska Natives but also under Murkowski and under Young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.168.100 (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I must butt in at this point. I was having conversations about 8(a) and its impact with a board member of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation as early as 2002 or 2003. Your bringing up something from 2010 makes me think that its a political hit piece, which we've seen far too much of WRT Stevens, Young, Palin, (both) Murkowski(s) and perhaps several others. I only mention this because political hit pieces, mostly originating from D.C., are used far too often in portraying Alaska in a light which may not necessarily have any bearing on what really goes on here. Witness the selective sourcing used in portraying the Gravina Island Bridge debate in perhaps the majority of articles on Wikipedia which refer to that issue.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I see the point about Native Corporations. In my experience they often use their status to secure Federal funds, but sub-contract the actual work to non-native companies. Is that wrong? I don't know, it actually seems kind of smart. Is there any reason to believe that Sen. Murkowski is directly giving out the contracts under her own authority and is aware or even responsible for supposed abuses as implied by recent edits? No. The Senate approved the program as a whole, not each individual contract, and in fact Murkowski has already gone on record as saying she supports the idea of the program but does not unequivocally endorse every single contract awarded to AK natives under it. Which the IPs adding this content are well aware of because I read that in one of the sources they were using to try and paint her with that brush. I note that the unfolding scandal is not mentioned in the actual article on the program, where it belongs. I've asked at WP:BLPN for some extra eyes on this page and Rep. Young's page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Color me skeptical - the Murkowski political family is notoriously corrupt. Lisa has reaped hay from the supposed positive side of this legislation, if the program turns out to be as corrupt as most AK GOP exercises this should be mentioned also. Kelly hi! 02:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Find a source that establishes her direct involvement in this and we can put in the article. Your skepticism is not a source. You have been around more than long enough to know that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, probably best to hold off for now. The FBI usually has to deal with AK Republican issues generated by Reudrich/Murkowski/Stevens/Young groups anyway...I'm sure something more will be forthcoming. Kelly hi! 02:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It is now abundantly clear that you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with even the most basic facts regarding the recent arrests. I happen to just hear a new story on Alaska Public Radio Network about this, [1] the arrests were one person employed by the Eyak Native Corporation and three civilians employed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The charge is that they defrauded this program, not that the program itself is corrupt. In fact, the SBA, along with the FBI and the IRS, were the principal investigative agencies that uncovered the fraud, so saying these arrests indicate corruption in the program is a like saying that catching a shoplifter proves that the store is crooked. Again, there is no reason this can't be discussed, sticking to the actual facts as reported by sources of course, at the article on the program itself, but there is no legitimate reason to include it here, no connection to Murkowski is even hinted at in any of the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you read what Senator Mikluski's press release said in the AP article on the Eyak case today, you'll see explicit criticisms of the inherent corruption in the system and the steps needed to correct them. I am starting to grow skepitcal of the objectivity used on editing this issue. I noticed the AP story was removed. Surely one has to wonder how a corporation of 350 members in Cordova can land a one billion dollar with the Corps of Engineers and be cleared for Cloud computing data storage for the US Government given the opportunity of abuse documented in the AP story. So why was the AP story removed?

As to Murkowski's connection to the 8a, it was on the watch of her [and Stevens] that this program grew to 5-6 billion a year from a few million. It is not necessary to produce a smoking gun to have that fact on her web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.120.95 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP article. Anything that suggest corruption needs to be very well sourced. Come up with a source that puts Murkowski and corruption together and we don't have a problem. If the program is corrupt, addf that material to the article on the program. In fact I have already begun to do just that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what one Senator wrote about the Eyak case: " Sen. Claire McCaskill, a longtime critic of the advantage tapped by Alaska Native corporations in obtaining billions of dollars in federal contracts through a Small Business Administration program, said the charges expose problems with the "large no bid contracts that Alaska Native Corporations are allowed to enjoy at the expense of American taxpayers."

"The Alaska Native Corporations should compete for these large contracts and further should not be allowed to `front' for other corporations that are actually doing the work," McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat and chair of the Senate Committee on Contracting Oversight, said in a written statement.

But the Native 8(a) Works coalition, which advocates for Alaska Native Corporations, said the allegations concerned just a few people and shouldn't reflect poorly on the law-abiding corporations that "provide excellent products and services to the federal government." [1]

McCaskill calls this no bid contract a problem and suggests a remedy which is not allow the 8(a) to "front" for other corporations where, as here, Eyak fronted for Company A named in the inditecment for a billion dollar contract. The relevant cite needs to be to an article or testimony of Murkowski on whether or not she agrees with McCaskill. While Murkowski has said she is for changes, I have not seen her say she is for the change McCaskill recommends. The committee considering reform of the 8(a) in the Senate split 50/50 on a vote to reform.

So it is not a matter of a smoking gun linking Murkowski to corruption as in Native Corporations paying her off to vote one way or the other but of whether there was a legislative quid pro quo for money that the 8(a) Corps paid to get her reelected in 2010. It is a matter of public record that Murkowski's campaign gained 1.7 million by a group called Alaskans Standing Together, most of which came from 8 (a) corporations with money bundled by the former head of Sealaska Corp. This year, Murkowski introduced S 730 to benefit Sealaska and Sealaska alone. That is the quid pro qup, but it is not a smoking gun of money being put into her private pocket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.120.95 (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. Whether your opinion is right or wrong, whether I agree with it or not, is not relevant. Show me the source that says what you just said about a quid pro quo. We can't go connecting the dots for ourselves, the picture already has to be clear from the sources. Thanks to the repeated attempts to use this article to imply said connection, the article is now semi-protected so that new or unregistered users cannot edit it. That was not my decision but an action taken by another admin who apparently saw what was going on here and decided to take administrative action to prevent it from continuing. Once again, I encourage you to add relevant material to the article on the actual program where it belongs. As should now be apparent this is not just my opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Murkowski listing in List of United States political families

Lester Otto Gore (1890-1965) was Nancy Murkowski's father/Frank Murkowski's father-in-law/Lisa Murkowski's maternal grandfather. Gore was a judge of the United States territorial court based in Nome (where if I recall correctly, Nancy Murkowski was born) from 1932 to 1934, and a candidate for Alaska Territory's At-large congressional district in 1936. He doesn't appear to have an entry in Political Graveyard, from which these lists are largely sourced. Of course, there are other sources available. Should the entry be changed to "The Gores and Murkowskis" to reflect this?RadioKAOS (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Marriage equality

I'd like to start a discussion on this. I've reached my 3RR limit, which I apologize for - I got a little bit too trigger-happy there. I would like to say that I think using such a term runs contrary to our policies on neologisms and politically-charged terms. I don't think it is appropriate, in the voice of Wikipedia, to state that same-sex marriage is 'marriage equality'.
I think a good compromise might be to say that in the voice of Murkowski - that is, to quote her saying it, but keep the header as being 'same-sex marriage'. To give a broader view, we should also include her earlier statements in opposition to it. Either way, it doesn't make sense to say Murkowski supported a ban on 'same-sex marriage', say her views on 'same-sex marriage' are evolving, and then say she supports 'marriage equality' as of 2013. Either she opposed 'marriage equality' before supporting it, or she opposed 'same-sex marriage' before supporting it. ANy other thoughts? Toa Nidhiki05 03:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Marriage equality is unencyclopedic and non-neutral. Same-sex marriage is the appropriate term in all contexts (see: Same-sex marriage in the United States, etc.) —Designate (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The citations for her earlier views indicate she stated her opposition to either "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage". Which makes sense, since no U.S. politician in their right mind is going to make statements opposing "fooian equality", no matter what "fooian" is. Making the same assumption of good faith for Murkowski that we make for our peers here, it's entirely possible that her views "evolved" to the extent that she now views something as a matter of equality in spite of her previous opposing views. In any case, that's the phrase used in the title of her op-ed announcement. I would not oppose your suggestion of changing the section title to "Same-sex marriage" and using "marriage equality" when introducing her current position, since most of the section discusses the issue in terms of same-sex marriage. If we need to use quotation marks, though, I would advise quoting a longer phrase incorporating the words "marriage equality" rather than triggering a debate about the use of scare quotes for the two words alone. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; I say that start with "On (insert date here), Murkowski announced that (insert big quote supporting marriage equality here)". I'd go ahead and add it myself, but I've hit the 3RR limit and somebody was so kind as to make a drive-by revert rather than engage in the discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 14:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. I count "equal" appearing nearly seventy times at same-sex marriage, including multiple times in the lede and the article specifically cites "equality under the law." "Marriage equality" isn't a "neologism" anymore than "same-sex marriage" is, they were simply coined by two different groups. See, for instance, the article on gay rights — which, by your measure, I suspect would be homosexual rights — but is, instead, "LGBT rights." If Murkowksi called it "marriage equality," that's a perfectly reasonable term for us to use in her biography. user:j (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
If I were a Senator or major think tank that supported a flat tax and I called it 'tax equality', would the section on my page on taxes be called 'tax equality'? Of course not. Or what if a pro-life group began using the term 'life equality'. Would that be acceptable to use on their article? Of course not. Why? Because they are neologisms used to pin down the opposite side into opposing 'equality'. Who would oppose equality? It's a political, not factual, term, and it has no place being said in the voice of Wikipedia.
Of course, if you really, really, really want to use that neologism here, than you need to be consistent and change the four uses of 'same-sex marriage' to be 'marriage equality'. It is not very fair to, in Wikipedia's voice, say she supported a ban on 'same-sex marriage', but then later say, in Wikipedia's voice, that she supports 'marriage equality'. She either supports 'equality' or she doesn't. I have no issue with her voice being used in using the term (ie. a quote saying "I support marriage equality", not "Murkowski supports marriage equality"), but Wikipedia's voice should not be doing that. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You're building straw man arguments. "Tax equality" has a whopping eleven hits on Google News, several of which (ironically) apply to equal marriage. Marriage equality, on the other hand, has nearly 24k, with equal marriage adding another 2k. A neologism essentially invented by you does not equate to a descriptive phrase in common usage. user:j (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I never said those terms were real; they aren't. However, they, like 'marriage equality', are neologisms. It doesn't matter how often you use the neologism, it is - and still will remain - a contrived neologism to place one group in the undesirable position of 'opposing equality' - just like my fictional 'tax equality' and 'life equality'. There is no real difference between the three except that mine are invented and 'marriage equality' is real. Toa Nidhiki05 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I've discovered a usage of tax equality in the sense I said. It is on a reliable source, the Hill, and made by a notable commentator, Armstrong Williams. Can I go to Armstrong Williams' page and add a section on his support for 'tax equality'? Here's another - Scott Rasmussen supports tax equality. Can I add it to his too? Toa Nidhiki05 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
Once again, an isolated attempt to promote the term in a single piece of commentary does not equate to widespread common usage by reliable sources. But, I'm not going to continue to counter your straw man arguments, it's clear you have a point to make and that you want to make it here disruptively. I'll reiterate, though, that "equal marriage" is a phrase in common usage with widespread recognition in reliable sources, as a quick Google News or Google Scholar search can easily reveal. The phrase you're trying to compare it to, on the other hand, is a true neologism with little, if any, recognition in reliable sources. One is perfectly reasonable for us to use in this context at this article; a case could be made that the other could be used if editorially necessary and attributed to a direct quote at, say, flat tax. The two, however, are not the same, and as your pædophilia edit summary illustrated, your really are apparently unable to understand the difference. user:j (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So let me get this straight - because I am arguing that, in Wikipedia's voice, using the term 'marriage equality' is an inappropriate use of a WP:NEOLOGISM (which 'marriage equality' undoubtedly is), and because I have created a discussion thread to try and reach an agreeable compromise with the other people in this dispute, I am tendentiously editing? Nice to see you are assuming good faith.
Might I remind you that, according to the tendentious editing page, "Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page". Or what about the very top of the page? "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out". My comment was badly-thought out. But to accuse me of tendentious editing based off of it flies flat in the face of suggestions relating to tendentious editing accusations. Toa Nidhiki05 17:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't need a reminder, and I didn't raise the issue lightly. But starting a discussion thread doesn't suddenly make you immune from anything, especially in light of repeatedly trying to make what can only be described as a tendentious argument combined with disruptively reverting multiple editors (along with the promise that you would have reverted again had you been able to do so without being blocked). Factoring in your pædophilia edit summary comment, you're really way out of the realm of a "badly-thought out" comment and way inside the realm of editing in an area in which you clearly can't be objective or collaborative. user:j (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be raising it very lightly, considering I apologized for the reverting and am actually working to get a compromise here. I initiated the discussion and offered a compromise that would keep the term in the article (by using Murkowski's voice) but rename the section to fit standards that I think would better meet WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. Your accusations of tendentious editing are clearly contrary to what the page itself actually suggests - they are not helpful and I request you stop. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I pointed out the issues with your editing once, it in the hope that you would take a step back and realize that there's a problem. You did, at least in part, in recognizing that your edits were "badly-thought out." I've not raised it elsewhere, and I've only responded to you here, so your "request [that I] stop" seems disingenuous at best. That being said, I have no interest in engaging with you further on this and I'm collapsing this part of this discussion. If you want to continue it by yourself, you're free to do so. user:j (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lisa Murkowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lisa Murkowski. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lisa Murkowski. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lisa Murkowski. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

deVos confirmation

On 2/1/17, Lisa Murkowski and Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins, after having forwarded the controversial nomination of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary to the Senate floor, both voted against her confirmation. Either could have stopped the process in committee, on the previous day. That left Vice President Michael Pence to cast the deciding vote for confirmation, a first in Senate history. Activist (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If anyone cares about biographical information and not just regurgitating political headlines...

While browsing recent obituaries, I came across one of her uncle. According to that obituary, Lisa Murkowski is a descendant of John Gore (Royal Navy officer, died 1790). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

New impeachment section

Seems with news looming that Murkowski will vote against hearing witnesses in the Senate Trump impeachment case, there will undoubtedly be more content added about her in this article, I saw that there was already a little bit of information in the "political positions" header paragraph about her and a couple other GOP senators who refused to sign an impeachment resolution, was just curious if this signals the need to make a sub header for giving impeachment of Donald Trump its own section. Let me know your thoughts MaximusEditor (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

She's not a moderate, never has been, that first part of the article will be removed or Mods here who closed edits for accuracy will find out personally what happens when you post lies...Times up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3A60:27C0:A0FF:D196:E244:B0A2 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yawn, really? Does anyone know what a biography is? This article is already enough of a dumping ground for links to news stories about the political office she holds, as opposed to content and links pertaining to her life. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea of an impeachment section. The New York Times has an article, "Despite Evidence, Republicans Rallied Behind Trump. This Was Their Reasoning" [2]. The article quotes Murkowski, and has a link to her website [3] Her website statement criticizes the (Democratic) House report as being flawed -- which is not surprising given that the (Republican) Administration kept people from testifying. This is victim blaming. At the same time she criticizes Congress for being partisan.Saenger (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Her stance during the impeachment is hardly a major part of her biographical profile. No need of its own section. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Talk to me, Billy (above), who says, the entry has become a "dumping ground for links to news stories about the political office she holds, as opposed to content and links pertaining to her life." I think it would be great to have more about who she is as a person, and I think her comments on her website speak volumes about who she is. This is probably her most serious vote ever, and her statement is revealing.Saenger (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(totally not) Excommunicated from Roman Catholic Church

Murkowski was denied communion publicly. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/revealed-alaska-priest-denied-communion-to-pro-abortion-lisa-murkowski?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed that section header for you. "some obviusly extremely biased website says that some guy told a radio host that Murkowski was denied communion" obviously is not an excommunication. Please try to be more accurate in your edits, and use only reliable sources, not obvious anti-abortion websites. Beeblebrox (talk)
  1. ^ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARMY_CORPS_BRIBERY?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lisa_Murkowski/Archive_3&oldid=1140225843"