Talk:Karen Minnis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serious POV Evident

Wow. This page is seriously suffering from POV. Is the only thing Minnis known for "gutting and stuffing" legislation that keeps getting votied down in state after state after state? Please! There has got to be more. Let's be fair here.

I do not know Minnis from a hole in the wall. But I do know when I read this wiki page right now, it looks like a hit piece by people who don't like her. And I am also thinking of a sentence I already removed with a derogatory name for Minnis because it had absolutely no support whatsoever.

Here, for example, is what some truthful information might include, reworded of course, although I myself do not personally know:

Minnis's record is actually pretty impressive when you look at it. Last session in Salem, she was the dominant political leader, not Courtney, not Kulongoski. In 2003, she single-handily stopped massive cuts to Oregon's social service network (preserving services to thousands of vulnerable Oregonians) by the passage of her immediate care package. Both Courtney and Kulongoski wanted to turn their backs on these people due to political expediency. I am sooooooo tired of liberals not giving Minnis her due. Yes she is a conservative. Yes, she rules the House with an iron fist. But you have to admit she is one effective lawmaker. The governor's education plan was nothing but a slightly more expensive version of Minnis's education stability legislation.

Karen is one tough grandmother.

And yet Minnis blocked the Oregon Open Source Act, fully knowing it would save the state $30,000,000/yr in software licensing and upgrades, fully knowing the schools and Oregon Healthplan (which desperately needs to be universal given how few employers offer health insurance in Oregon these days), both could use the money a whole lot more than the Business Software Alliance's membership. Guess which side had lobbyists offering free vacations to Minnis and her pals in Salem? The fact that she did one thing right doesn't negate the fact she upheld the status quo of throwing good money after bad in the IT department instead of leading the movement to fix it.

If Minnis is such a good grandmother, why did she pay to make that sex abuse lawsuit go away instead of clearing her name through the court? It seems if someone is concerned about keeping up the appearance of being a morally well-adjusted, compassionate values oriented person, they would want to answer the courts and clear their name instead of leaving that question mark out there. She may be my state rep, but I'm still calling the county sheriff and having her hauled off on tresspassing charges if she goes around door to door in my complex again this year. We don't need her type in our neighborhood (or really our city, since it's only two square miles, and anyone arrested goes to county jail five cities away in Portland). --BalooUrsidae 10:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't know the subject of this wiki, but it sure looks like a hit piece to me with serious POV evident. I'd like to see someone with knowledge edit this fairly and in line with Wikipedia guidelines. --SafeLibraries 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the history of this article. It was recently written by Sarge Baldy. I looked at Sarge Baldy's Wiki page and it says, among other things, "I'm an unboxed anarchist and ecofeminist. A long-time agnostic, I now consider nature a sort of god; not with a consciousness of her own, nor of the sort to be worshiped, but as an eternal force to be befriended." Now there is nothing wrong with being that. Sarge Baldy also supports the states of Washington and Oregon leaving the USA to become part of Cascadia! Yet she is writing about an Oregon politician!! No bias there, eh? She created this Minnis page and now I understand why the bias is so clearly evident. --SafeLibraries 12:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Wikipedian "Allen Smithey" just resolved the issue. Bravo! Encyclopedias are supposed to be encyclopedic, not soapboxes for people wanting Oregon to leave the USA to become part of "Cascadia." Thanks for contributing. I now withdraw my concerns that caused me to write this new section in the first place. --SafeLibraries 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WOW! EastCountyNewsie just added a ton of POV that was also non encyclopedic. I just reverted this vandalism - the smears were plainly evident. Hey EastCountyNewsie, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox! What to add the stuff? Make it NPOV and make it encyclopedic and that'll be a good start. --SafeLibraries 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, SafeLibraries, you also have a very conservative bias, and we have already talked about this via email after you sent me a letter via the US Postal Service. Be aware that encyclopedias do not read like glossy campaign articles if the goal is to be informative enough to let readers draw a conclusion other than the very possibly misleading "noble politician" conclusion. There are no good candidates for District 49 this year, abut only one so far has fought against education, healthcare, the first amendment, and left open the possiblity of letting their spouse boink your daughter on the job and call it part of the healthplan...

--BalooUrsidae 10:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by EastCountyNewsie

Vandalism by EastCoastNewsie continues to occur despite Wikipedia policy, adequate notice, and other things. So I reverted again, again to remove the vandalism. --SafeLibraries 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Worse, the vandalism by EastCountyNewsie is the EXACT SAME ACT FOR WHICH FRIENDS FOR SAFER LIBRARIES ET AL. IS BEING SUED IN COURT WITH A SLAPP SUIT AND FOR WHICH ROB BRADING IS ACCUSING KAREN MINNIS!!!

Years ago a mother takes her child to a public library. The library's unfiltered computer allowed her 10 year old girl to see porn. That library might have had filters as required by the law and the US Supreme Court but the library's controllers chose to skirt that law, refuse to accept federal funding, and maintain unfiltered Internet access. Naturally, the mother partially blames those who make the rules for the library that allowed the continued use of unfiltered Internet computers despite the law.

So, not willing to allow this same thing and worse to occur to other children, she sends out a flyer about Rob Brading and his position in the library and his failure to take any action to prevent the continuation of the use of unfiltered Internet computers. Why? He is running in a political race, obviously. Like me, there comes a point when people will no longer take their children being stepped on by radicals running public libraries with agendas from out of state.

Well guess what. Rob Brading decides to sue the mother and makes sure everyone knows he thinks his opponent, Karen Minnis, is involved with the flyer. He argues, essentially, that Minnis's minions secretly acted on her behalf to spread lies about him. And, get this, the law suit is essentially attempting to end the free speech of the mother whose child was victimized in the public library where Rob Brading himself did little or nothing to filter the computers that eventually hurt her own daughter! So, while protecting the so-called "free speech" rights of children to access inappropriate sexual material (something with which the US Supreme Court and community standards disagrees), he attempts to shut down the free speech rights of a mom who, at least allegedly, was directly affected by his own alleged actions or inactions.

Worse, and this is what he accuses Minnis of, his own "minions," here represented by EastCoastNewsie, are misrepresenting Minnis, indeed even censoring out positive information about her (worse than what Rob Brading is suing over), in an open, public forum!! EastCoastNewsie cuts out positive info about her, adds in his/her own propaganda, does so repeatedly, despite warnings of following Wikipedia policy, and these are EastCostNewsies only "contributions" to date on Wikipedia! Clearly EastCoastNewsie is acting on Rob Brading command just as much as Friends for Safer Libraries is acting on Karen Minnis's command.

What this all shows is 1) Rob Brading's SLAPP suit should be laughed out of court because a) Rob Brading can be accused of having done the exact smae thing and worse of which he accuses Karen Minnis, and b) this case is as absurd as it sounds, particularly where statements about Rob Brading might possibly be true or largely or even partly the truth, and 2) EastCoastNewsie continues to override Wikipedia policy, is not acting in Wikipedia fashion, could care less about Wikipedia, and only hopes to smear a political opponent of his/her own views.

I am writing this here because EastCostNewsie repeatedly vandalises this wiki page, and the explanation is needed so people understand that should he/she continue to violate Wiki policy, Wiki action might be taken against him/her by Wikipedia to prevent further vandalism. --SafeLibraries 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Minnis smeared elsewhere

Using the exact same POV language/smear used on this page that was eventually made NPOV, Karen Minnis is smeared again, again using POV attacks. Someone might what to correct that per wiki policy. See Same-sex unions in Oregon. --SafeLibraries 03:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editting Comments Out of Talk Due to Wiki Policy

I have editted comments out of this talk page pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons wherein it says, "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." The source was poor from a wiki standpoint because, in part, it was created a day or so before appearing here. It is highly questionable because editorial boards who dislike Minnis nevertheless said the material is not true and irrelevant. I have been removing it from the main wiki page but not this Talk page. Until now, that is, now that I read that wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

revert war

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and User:Dnstrom: Please stop the repeated reversions of external links. Going back and forth is a pointless waste of Wikipedia's resources. I would suggest that you begin by discussing your differing opinions here on the talk page; if you have difficulty coming to agreement, Mediation is an excellent resource. -Pete 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the policy at the top of this page, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous," the external links are to be removed immediately until it is shown they are not smears, and not vice versa. Therefore, I am again removing the smears in compliance with wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

Citing to web sites put up by political opponents is "poorly sourced." I mean these additions don't pass the laugh test. It would be like citing to a Daily Kos web site as a source of information on Rudy Giuliani. POV anyone? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)