Talk:Sharron Angle/Archive 1

Edit request from 75.229.2.83, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This page is the subject of some controversy because it is heavily focussed on a story from 2003 that the subject's political opponents have historically liked to use to scare voters. It is in circulation again because of her prominent position in the current primary in NV-Sen. I'm not asking that the existing information be removed, but I think it's appropriate that it be supplemented, as it's not totally representative of her political career. I'm including a section below on legislation she introduced, and the section on the current race could also be augmented with recent polls and articles about her. Thanks for your consideration, and please feel free to contact me at ryanjamesgill@gmail.com.

Selected Proposed Legislation

1999 Regular legislative session

• AB 66 Whistle blower protection which prohibits retaliatory action against an independent contractor who discloses improper governmental action.
• AB 165 Requires juveniles to pay restitution for personal injuries they caused in the commission of a crime
• AB294 Requires that teachers be trained to teach reading based on scientific reading research (phonics) qualifying Nevada for at least $26 million in Federal Reading Grant Money
• AB377 Requires the DMV to contract with private business (such as smog stations, Insurance companies etc.) to offer registration and licensing of vehicles
• AB580 Requires providing information concerning scientific link between induced abortion and increased rate of breast cancer

2001 Regular Legislative session

• AB226 Prohibits schools from requiring medication of a pupil for attendance in school. (the Ritalin bill)
• AB261 Repeals the state portion of the gasoline taxhttp://www.leg.state.nv.us/71st/bills/AB/AB261.pdf</ref>.
• AB425 Removes health insurance mandates and creates a basic health insurance policy

2003 Regular Legislative Session

• AB154 Allows local governments to determine laws governing smoking of tobacco in public places.
• AB187 Caps non-economic damages in all tort actions
• AB545 Revises provisions relating to elections conducted to determine which, if any, employee organization represents majority of local government employees in bargaining unit
• AJR17 Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to impose upon Legislature certain limitations on amount that Legislature may appropriate or authorize for expenditure. ( Nevada TABOR like Colorado TABOR)
• AJR19 Proposes amendment to Nevada Constitution to limit amount of property tax to 1% of taxable value, ( Nevada style Prop 13)

2005 Regular Legislative Session

• AB 194 Allows plaintiff to be paid compound interest on his bond during and action relating to eminent domain
• AB266 Provides that interest and income earned on money in stagnant accounts and funds be credited for use by school districts for supplies for classrooms
• AB268 Requires Legislative Auditor to report willful noncompliance to the Attorney General
• AB269 Requires identification of voters at poll
• AB441 Revises provisions governing literacy and accountability in education
• AB448 Repeals privilege tax on motor vehicles

75.229.2.83 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

do you have any secondary sources which would summarize this. right now you have listed several bills she co-authored without any context.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher, we should stick to the current standards of the article and focus on using secondary sources over primary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think, judging from his facebook profile that our friend is attempting to modify this article as a professional activity (check out the current job listing)Coffeepusher (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

also just found this which specifically references this article in an apparent call for action...any chance of extending that semi-protection status?Coffeepusher (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes by User:Dougieb

[1] = let us please keep this material in straight chronological order, rather than thematically. Please discuss, here on the talk page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is a joke in its current state. I just did some major editing on it (mostly deletions, but a lot of moving stuff around). I probably erased 50 redundant sentences unrelated to the base subject. This entire article should have just been renamed "Scientology" Even now, it is heavily weighted on something that is likely irrelevant, however there should maybe be some reference to the scientology thing since people might want to know about what the rumor is about. Given the weight that was given to this, I'd probably sway towards semi-protection as well. Dougieb (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Cirt, I undid your undo. Look at the article. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE to seperate this section from everything else. As it was, it was not following chronological order - it WAS the article. If someone can go in and rewrite that section, THEN, throw it back in chronologically. Right now, it was spread over several sections and a disaster. Dougieb (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On second reading, since the event itself and the controversy that is going on now happened in two time periods, it would be impossible to run this chronologically as events would overlap. Check it out yourself and I think you'll see that there isn't any clean way to do it. Additionally, I did pretty substantial edits other than the consolidating of the section. Dougieb (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dougieb (talk · contribs) removed (6) sources from the article, reducing the references from 28 to 22. Let us please not push info down into a thematic section, and instead keep it to a straight chronological order. There is: 1) The attempted legislation efforts, and 2) the 2010 political campaign itself. Info should fit into those subsections, and not be lumped together as a "controversy" section. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cirt, controversy sections get messy and fail to provide the correct context (Sharron Angle's opponents didn't just pull something she did recently, they are digging something up 8 years old and which she still supports (her recent claim that it has a 10% relaps rate and she will support it). The mention of Scientology isn't a minor event either, rather there are multiple verifiable secondary sources being currently published which talk about it, while the Blog's of her supporters are calling to whitewash her record (and this article...directly).Coffeepusher (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, then EDIT it, don't revert to what it was before. The article as it is was is absolute and total crap. It is an article about Scientology with a mention of Sharron Angle. You might as well throw a redirect on Scientology and point it to this article. The deleted citations were for largely irrelevant statements. If this event is so earthshaking as to require 90% of an article, then it should have it's own article and I should be watching it on TV right now, damn! But seriously, this is a joke. Dougieb (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

you are displaying a very specific agenda in your edits and tone of your criticisms to this article...and you happen to be from Nevada. do you have a conflict of interest like the last 3 editors who were very critical of this article? I reverted it because the revision was so muddled I didn't have a good starting point...I see you didn't respect the 3rr rule. I think our conversation is overCoffeepusher (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm displaying an agenda that your defense of the article in its current form is complete BS. Is this an article on scientology? or a legislator/candidate? If you bothered to even CHECK the coveted "references", you would note that the words cited weren't even in the cited articles! Unreal! That seriously makes me think YOU have an agenda. If you don't, I would appreciate an apology. And I agree, the article is muddled as hell - mostly with things written with citations that have nothing to do with what was written. This is heavily slanted.

For example... "When asked at a Republican political mixer event held in Winnemucca, Nevada about something untrue being stated about her, Angle identified the rumor that she is affiliated with Scientology as a concern." was cited with [2]. If you read the article, this statement is absurd and your defense of it being there is indefensible.

I could give you about 4 other examples. With all due respect Coffee, I realize that you don't have time to check every fact from every article, but this is one of the most egregious flame jobs I've ever seen on anyone and were it me, I would sue for defamation seeing as Wiki has been duly advised that the citations are bogus. Dougieb (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Protected three days, per WP:AN3#User:Dougieb reported by -- Cirt (talk) (Result: Protected). Please try to reach agreement on the outstanding issues while the article is protected. Ask at WP:RFUP if agreement is reached. Editors who continue to revert (without clear consensus) after protection expires may be closely scrutinized by admins. Genuine BLP questions can be raised at WP:BLP/N. Only WP:UNDUE applies if an issue has already been widely discussed in WP:Reliable sources and if the facts are well-established. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for the time being, I'm concentrating away from this particular page and instead doing some research for a separate article about the failed proposed legislation effort, as agreed by NuclearWarfare. However, it is disheartening to see this article being turned into a whitewashing piece by Dougieb (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please reinsert "As a result of the lawsuit, the seven member Nevada Supreme Court has been replaced through election defeat or retirement. The new court reversed the decision in 2007 restoring the Nevada Constitutional 2/3 provision." - this was just removed for lack of citation. (forgot to include - here is the citation - http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Sep-12-Tue-2006/news/9595011.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougieb (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I had added a section on Angle V. Guinn and the wrapup/result of the paragraph was "As a result of the lawsuit, the seven member Nevada Supreme Court has been replaced through election defeat or retirement. The new court reversed the decision in 2007 restoring the Nevada Constitutional 2/3 provision.", but I failed to add the reference tag and these two lines were removed as unsourced by Cirt on 02:57, 29 May 2010. Please re-add these sentences to paragraph with reference http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Sep-12-Tue-2006/news/9595011.html.

 Not done There is nothing in the citation (nor will you be able to find anything) to support the statement that that the Supreme court was replaced as a result of the lawsuit. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops! My bad... okay, this is the citation for the last sentence, "The new court reversed the decision in 2007 restoring the Nevada Constitutional 2/3 provision." Please reinsert and I will track down the other citation when I don't have to be up in 4 hours :) Dougieb (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not a "citation". That is an assertion of purported info, made by User:Dougieb, not backed up to anything. There is no consensus to add such unsourced info to the article. -- Cirt (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, "The new court reversed the decision in 2007 restoring the Nevada Constitutional 2/3 provision." is CLEARLY sourced by the reference which states, "In the Friday decision, the court unanimously changed its opinion in Guinn v. the Nevada State Legislature, issued in 2003, which said the need to fund education was more important than the two-thirds vote requirement.", "Becker signed the Friday opinion with the new language reversing the 2003 decision.", and "The portion of the 2003 opinion that distinguished between procedural and substantive requirements in the constitution was rejected by the court. It was this analysis that said the substantive requirement to fund education took priority over the procedural requirement for a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. "We expressly overrule that portion of the opinion," the court said. "The Nevada Constitution should be read as a whole, so as to give effect to and harmonize each provision.". I'm not sure what more substantiation or how much clearer the reference needs to be.

However, again, I was only 1/2 right. The other sentence regarding the supreme court being replaced as a result was only partially substantiated by the reference (eg: "As a result of the lawsuit, the seven member Nevada Supreme Court has been replaced through election defeat or retirement."), I had another source for but lost it, but even this reference states, "The controversial 6-1 opinion, written by then Chief Justice Deborah Agosti, did cause some political fallout. Agosti opted not to run for re-election in 2004. Justice Nancy Becker is the first who sided with the majority in the 2003 decision to run for re-election." which I completely agree isn't enough to substantiate the statement, so I am happily conceding on this sentence.

So... I will drop the part about the court being replaced which should end the dispute and add as verified, "Angle ultimately prevailed. In 2006, the state supreme court reversed its decision restoring the Nevada Constitutional 2/3 provision." ?, since that is very clearly what the source states. That should wrap this up nicely. If anyone still has a problem with this, please open another dispute on this specifically rather than on both facts. Dougieb (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FactCheck.org

FactCheck.org has an article up about Sharron Angle. While there might not be any specific information from the article itself that is usable, there are links to a good number of articles that might prove to be helpful as sources. NW (Talk) 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Scientology

There is literally tons of secondary source coverage about this issue. Just because the controversy has been whitewashed out of the article down to one sentence (at present) does not mean the WikiProject tag should be removed. It is still highly relevant to the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as the article is "whitewashed" of all but a passing mention of Scientology, there is absolutely no reason to keep the Wikiproject Scientology banner on this talk page. It simply gives credence to the bizarre conspiracy theories that are not well-sourced enough to appear in the article and is likely in violation of WP:BLP. Unless you think there should be a Wikiproject Islam template on the Barack Obama page, this is just a nasty smear. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be an interesting personal opinion of yours, but in reality it is extremely relevant to the political history in Nevada and of the candidate. There are literally hundreds of news articles covering this controversial issue. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet somehow only one passing mention of Scientology has managed to pass WP:BLP scrutiny and end up in the main article. The volume of sources is completely irrelevant if they are not reliable enough to include in the article. A substantive connection between Angle and Scientology needs to be established in the article according to WP policies before templates like this are added to the talk page. Otherwise, it's just subterfuge to get around BLP and NPOV. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. The volume of sources includes a great multitude of WP:RS sources. A WikiProject tag simply means the page is relevant to the project. It is not a tag on the article page itself, and not a "BLP" issue to have a WikiProject tag, on a talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So, would you object to adding a Wikiproject Islam template to the Barack Obama talkpage? After all, there are a multitude of sources that discuss the conspiracy theory. Enough to support an entirely separate article, in fact. Personally, I think it would be a WP:FRINGE and BLP violation, but that's exactly what you're doing here. Promoting a fringe theory with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge talk page template. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the focus and discussion on this particular article, please, thanks. Your opinion that this is a "fringe theory" is nice, but not accurate. It is historical fact. Reported and documented in numerous WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we've exhausted our dialogue here. This is going up on WP:Third opinion for now. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea.  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS sources check shows multitude of sources on subject of Sharron Angle and Scientology

1. 100 sources in current news articles
2. Additional sources in archived news articles
3. More sources in website searches

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of those sources are blogs, webforums, and personal webpages. There are a few reliable sources that mention the connection between Angle and Scientology -- I'll grant you that -- but hardly enough to establish that Angle is a closet Scientologist or illegitimate child of L. Ron Hubbard or whatever. The link between Angle and Scientology appears tenuous at best, and certainly not enough to warrant all of the hackles that have been raised by Angle's political opponents. Politics as usual. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Among those sources you seem to want to pass off as "blogs, webforums, and personal webpages" include such sources as The New York Times [3], Associated Press [4], FOX News [5], The Washington Post [6], The Australian [7], Las Vegas Review-Journal [8], and ABC News [9] [10]. -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Any WikiProject can bring any article it wants under its wing. There is no policy being violated here, no POV pushing in the article. The same would be true if a participant of WikiProject Islam put their tag on Barack Obama's article talk page. It seems to me that this discussion belongs among the members of the Scientology Wikiproject, on their project page, than here.

I must say that I am impressed that a mere tag on a talk page has generated a discussion about reliable sources. The reliable sources have been brought forth. If the collection of sources that qualify as "reliable" adds up to something significant, then perhaps more than a mere sentence in the article is warranted. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with Amatulić that more than a mere sentence is warranted, based upon the significant coverage in multiple WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Cirt. The subject's alleged connections with Scientology is a major issue in her senate race, and has attracted a lot of serious media attention. We need to reflect that fairly. We need to stop the whitewash. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware that Wikiprojects were given free reign to assume any page they want under their banner. That's useful information. In terms of the article itself, I don't see any problem with discussing the tangential relationship between some of Angle's legislative initiatives and the Church of Scientology. My reaction here is against the hit-and-run edits that have changed her religious affiliation to "Scientology" or otherwise suggest that she is some sort of secret Scientologist plant. Her judgment in affiliating with organizations related to the Scientology cult may be in question, but her religious affiliation is not. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Her judgment in affiliating with organizations related to the Scientology cult may be in question, but her religious affiliation is not." Of course. This is an astute analysis, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL... I'm now a pseudo-expert on this weird topic. Fact is that Angle arranged a fact-finding mission to travel to evaluate a program that licensed a portion of its cirriculum from a group associated with Scientology. Far as I could find, the bill draft request (BDR) went in just in case, but the trip never took place, so the bill was never presented. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. So, to use another analogy... if Angle heard that Staples was cheaper than OfficeMax, and arranged for other legislators to head down to a store to actually check it out, but it later turned out that Staples purchased its envelopes and paper from another company that had a Nazi as a major shareholder, would that make Angle a Nazi or connected to the Nazi party? This is beyond 3rd party - this is like 4th party. It is easy to see that this entire event was something imagined by a political opponent and blown out of proportion. This is all funny because I found PLENTY that is ACTUALLY wrong with Angle, but for some reason, everyone is fixated on this loosely related hunk of nothingness. Why doesn't someone get on some of the things that are WRONG with Angle? (LOL) I'm waiting for someone to use as a citation that she admitted to seeing the film "Risky Business", and therefore she must be a Scientologist. This gets more and more bizarre. It's not about any "whitewash" Cirt, it's about throwing out facts, and then letting the reader form an opinion based on them rather than steering the reader into a bizarre direction.Dougieb (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

except for the fact that she still stands by the decision and supports the treatment program in recent interviews.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dougieb has just satisfied Godwin's law in this discussion with this latest post. Says something about the quality of communication. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL!Coffeepusher (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I'd never heard of Godwin's Law. Awesome. Okay, replace "Nazi" with "Kevin Bacon" then because the connections are equally as substantive. Also, it looks like someone finally got around to putting in some of the stuff wrong with Angle - I stand corrected on that point, but still if we're going to allege a "connection" between Sharron Angle and Scientology (eg: Sharron Angle-Second Chance-Criminon-Scientology), then we might as well go all the way and connect her to Kevin Bacon as well. Also, Coffee, I saw that she stood by the decision to look at the program, but nothing else. Also, from what I saw, the program doesn't exist anymore, does it? If that is the case, how can she "support" the implementation of something that no longer exists?Dougieb (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) um "we" are not making the connection, the Reliable sources are the ones making the connection. Wikipedia is about verifiability not WP:TRUTHCoffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You've inspired me and I stand corrected. I'll try not to let facts stand in the way of my edits in the future.Dougieb (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fluoride in drinking water

A simple Google search shows that Angle does oppose water fluoridation, albeit most of the sources are left-wing websites, but it is not just a comment on a forum. Regardless, I don't think this is worthy of mention, as it is not a relevant issue in contemporary politics. Cwenger (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Even just in general there are way too many primary sources in this article. The article should rely on independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Privatizing Social Security

I am finding numerous references, in passing, to Angle's support for replacing Social Security with private accounts. I can't find anything from her (her website is currently just a donations button), nor am I having luck finding an interview transcript or such that would qualify as solid citation.

This is an important issue, and I'll keep looking, unless one of you beats me to it. Uberhill 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Armed insurrection

The politician has been known to push the idea of armed insurrection, that should be added: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/06/sharron-angle-second-amendment-remedies/' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/06/what-are-sharron-angles-2nd-amendment-remedies-to-reids-oppression.html Silver163 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the section already in the article, called "Armed revolution"? ~Amatulić (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientology

The following 7000 byte section was in the article

At a Republican political mixer event held in Winnemucca, Nevada, Angle "refuted the rumor that she’s a Scientologist." The American Spectator reported that Angle's support of "a Church of Scientology "destocks" program" has been "dogging" her. During a KVBC-hosted debate on the program Face to Face with Jon Ralston with other candidates including John Chachas, Chad Christensen, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian, Angle was asked by journalist Ralston "about recent whispers that an Angle legislative proposal to explore a program of massages and sweat-boxes for Nevada prisons was a strange foray into Scientology." Angle responded, "This program had a recividism rate of less than 10 percent. They aren’t massages. ... it was more of a karate chop. The sauna was a sweat box. When you’re in there with 30 guys it’s not exactly a sauna." Angle stated that the controversy with Scientology had been "largely distorted". Publications including the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and The Huffington Post analyzed the 2010 Senate campaign; both noted that Sue Lowden took out a political ad criticizing Angle for the candidate's associations with Scientology. The ad stated, Angle "pushed a bill favored by the Church of Scientology"; the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that "no bill was ever introduced". The Las Vegas Sun, however, found that Angle's website credited her with a successful bill against against psychotropic drugs in schools, and that Angle had accompanied celebrity Scientologists Jenna Elfman and Kelly Preston to promote the bill in the US Senate. References to Elfman and Preston had been recently removed from the website, but spokesman Jerry Stacy said that this happened just because of a revamp of the site. Angle herself promoted a similar bill in the Nevada Assembly, but was not successful. Regarding criticisms faced relating to Scientology, Angle told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "The way to ruin a conservative is to pass them off as part of the radical fringe. They always try to marginalize me." The New York Times cited Scientology among issues discussed, in a piece on the 2010 Nevada Senate race. In an analysis of Lowden's advertisement critical of Angle, reporter Ed Pearce of KOLO-TV noted, "The Second Chance program, as it was called, included a detox regimen which involved prisoners going cold turkey off of drugs, supposedly sweating the toxins out in a sauna-like room and getting massages to ease cramps caused by withdrawal. Essential elements of the program can be traced back to Scientology founder L.Ron Hubbard. It has been debunked by many as unproven and even dangerous." Eric Kleefeld wrote an analysis of the race for Talking Points Memo, and stated that "accusations that she has ties to the Church of Scientology", could become a possible "weakness in the race" for Angle. The Associated Press reported that Angle, "wanted female inmates to enter a drug rehabilitation program devised by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, an idea she still defends." In an analysis reporting on the candidate, Mother Jones noted that Angle has "taken heat for alleged ties to the Church of Scientology."

That section massively violated WP:UNDUE. At most, it should be a fifth of the length it was. Would anyone like to propose a massively shortened section (or expand the article to a level where such a long paragraph would not violate WP:UNDUE?) NW (Talk) 02:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the entirety of the info is not the way to go here. This issue has received a significant amount of coverage in secondary sources. It would be easier to add it back, and perhaps work on trimming from there. -- Cirt (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable leaving it in unless a neutral version that doesn't cover about 40% of the article prose can be written. The information is notable, sure, but it seems a bit overdone to have it here in this level of detail. If the same standards were applied to, say, Scott Brown, then there would be 500 words about Scott Brown and rape victims in this version of the article. NW (Talk) 03:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you suggest a proposed version that would be satisfactory to you, but hopefully would not involve the removal of the majority of the citations? I would be most willing to examine such a suggestion. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion below about spinning the proposed legislation into a separate article and then adding perhaps 500 characters of prose to this article to summarize sounds like an excellent idea. NW (Talk) 03:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the proposed legislation, and its historical background, commentary, and the various subsequent ramifications, is separately a notable topic. That could be worthwhile as a separate independent article, in addition to suitable coverage here in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to NuclearWarfare, okay, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

um...I have a problem with this edition of the article. it was pulled from Dougieb's edit which reads like a train wreck. the earlier version had more citations I believe and was written a lot better.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Coffee, you say you didn't like the "Train Wreck", but explain then why then that you actually wrote the "Train Wreck" (LOL) - I just consolidated your mess at the bottom of the article. Not to mention that your "citations" once I looked at them weren't citations at all for what you were saying. Sure, you can include 50 citations, but if they are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what you're citing, what's the point? Oh yeah, your agenda (LOL). Like I said, if this nonsense is so notable, it deserves it's own article - and to be on the cover of Time. It's such nonsense though. I can't believe you're giving weight to it. Oh, wait, I can (LOL)Dougieb (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

it is a train wreck (L...O...L???). while the other version flowed, your version is a cluster of quotes which read as a bullet point, or a legal brief which we know you are familiar with (28ish, DePaul). but this is an encyclopedia and not a legal brief and this edition lacks transition or contextualization...in other words a "train wreck" or a series of individual cars/thoughts colliding into one another. so instead of the personal insults and strong language you choose to use in this discussion, I am was actually referring to the quality of the article with productive descriptor.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of the question of Angle's religious beliefs. There are several possible sources that claim she shares the beliefs of Scientology, and others with her denials thereto. A short paragraph needs to be placed in with the issue, for our readers' information. Certainly, more than a sentence or two would be UNDUE weight. No mention at all would be disingenuous. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, at least at this point in time, including something so lengthy would be undue weight. On the other hand, I think the article would be improved by modifying and including the sentence that is followed by footnote 27 - about Angle's work on anti-psychotropic drug legislation along with celebrity Scientologists. I'd propose adding, "Angle's website credited her with a successful bill against against psychotropic drugs in schools, and Angle accompanied celebrity Scientologists Jenna Elfman and Kelly Preston to promote the bill in the US Senate. References to Elfman and Preston had been recently removed from the website, but spokesman Jerry Stacy said that this happened just because of a revamp of the site. Angle herself promoted a similar bill in the Nevada Assembly, but was not successful." with the cites for those modified sentences above added in. Just as the article shouldn't be dominated by Scientology, it should give the inaccurate impression that Angle's connection to Scientology was confined to one issue, when it actually involved more than one. --JamesAM (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Angle has categorically denied any association with the Church of Scientology, it would be a gross violation of WP:BLP, not to mention WP:UNDUE and WP:OR, to suggest that her religious convictions are anything other than what she has professed. If the controversy over her religious affiliation ever became notable enough, I suppose it could spin off onto its own page like the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will be creating an article, at some point soon. Just doing some initial research. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Her denial does not mean it's not verifiable; in fact, the reliable sources above verify there is a controversy over whether she is, in fact, a believer in some of the practices of Scientology. This is perhaps one of the three or four issues in the whole campaign, and we have nothing about it!? Bearian (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and placed a much shorter, NPOV sub-section back into the article, under the 2010 campaign, where I think it belongs. Please feel free to copyedit. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Tea Party" Candidate

"She is the 2010 Tea Party/Republican nominee for the United States Senate seat in Nevada held by the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid." By their own stipulation, the tea party is not a party. I'm going to take that out. Tserton (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what it means, it means that she's endorsed by the Tea Party Movement and running as a Republican. Atheuz (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection?

Due to repeated I attacks, I think this article needs extended semi-protection. Any ideas? Bearian (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

pic

why such a bad pic?68.160.231.103 (talk)68.160.231.103 (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't provided one that's not protected by copyright. Cresix (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose her campain would provide a better photo? Besides it looks like barbra boxer! rmnolto 9 aug 2010 --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.129.95 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to provide one from the campaign website but Wikipedia took it down because of copyright protection???? Could someone change it? It's clearly trying to make her look bad and isn't NPOV. The 13th 4postle 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by The 13th 4postle (talk • contribs)

I agree that the existing photograph was hideous so I've removed it from this article. I've searched for public licensed photographs of Ms Angle but I found none. As she's going to be on the stump for the next two months or so and there are plenty of Wikipedians in Nevada who possess cameras, it's quite reasonable to wait for somebody to take a good picture, upload it here and license it. --TS 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The image is subpar; there's no doubt about that, but I don't think it violates WP:MUG. Having an image, any image, to illustrate the article is better than a blank page. That said, a better image that meets copyright requirements would improve the quality of this article. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As the photographer who took that photo: I posted it because there was no photo at all. What I didn't do was crop it down to the current size; I thought the quality was not good enough. Someone else thought otherwise!

No, I didn't put it up there to discredit her; I figured that, in a very short time, someone (from her campaign, I should think) would provide a better photo. Noone has.

The photo was never intended to be a portrait of Angle and that's the only shot I had with a clear view of her face. That it's still there is really the shame of Angle's campaign; can't they put a nice portrait shot into the public domain? wtf. swain (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sirebral, 18 October 2010 Change purposesefully unflattering picture to Nevada Legislature Website version

{{edit semi-protected}} <!-- Begin request --> SharronAngle

Sirebral (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. That image page said it was a product of USA federal government. It was not. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)