Talk:Mark Begich

I have removed him from the Croatian Americans category, pending a discussion on whether that is accurate is pending at Talk:List of Croatian Americans. --TommyBoy 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite the unresolved question, he has since been restored to the category. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently contacted User:Zero Gravitas, regarding the 1994 Anchorage Mayor election results. Unfortunately, he was unable to provide an answer to my question. For more information, see his UserTalk page. Any assistance from other users would be appreciated. --TommyBoy 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On further Googling I've found a 2000 Peninsula Clarion article which has partial first round results, but still nothing about the runoff, which is what counts... —Zero Gravitas 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"He has consistently raised taxes and granted substantial wage increases to municipal employees."

I'm removing this sentence for now - but if it is factually true, someone should feel free to put it back in, with citation. As a relative outsider (I live in California) this strikes me as a potentially POVish statement, especially since none of Begich's other actions as Mayor are included in the article. Eeblet (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is true and easily found in documents from the city and or articles from public records. Also, it should be added he is under extreme pressure (under 35% approval ratings) and under investigation for fraudulent acts as mayor (like misleading the city council on deals he made to local unions etc.) Ran the city of Anchorage into a 30Million dollar hole.........how about some of you LIBERALS here on WIKI do you dam work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.190.18 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Under his mayoral leadership, the Begich administration as falsified and destroyed public records, lied to federal investigations, corrupted investigations, intimidated witnesses, falsified municipal investigations, tampered with evidence, betrayed oaths of office (countless times), denied others their constitutional rights (countless times), corrupted Internal Audit reports, knowingly and intentionally continued felonious crimes, committed perjury, received and given bribes, and on, and on, and on...

His administration committed countless crimes against the public with collusion, coercion, and extortion, including the Municipal Manager, Municipal Attorney, Director of Employee Relations, Director of Internal Audit, etc., all of whom are his mayoral appointees.

In less than 6 years as mayor, the municipal budget was increased by 55%. His campaign for the senate included claims of having increased jobs and eliminated the debt when in reality, he devastated our city and left us with a huge deficit.

Hopefully, Begich will be the next Alaskan politician prosecuted for corruption. If he isn't, it won't because of a lack of evidence, lack of culpability, or my lack of effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.190.18 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum. This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not for personal opinions on its subject. --skew-t (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous editor (with a Wasilla, AK IPN address, 66.58.190.18) had a prior history of massive, inappropriate deletions of content from Wikipedia articles such as Wendy's and Stephen Hawking, replacing well-vetted content with vulgarisms and pornographic graphics. Activist (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want to compliment the wiki users. That was really, really fast update about the senate election.Saberwolf116 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone happen to know exactly what this guy believes? Senator's websites are always very vague and amorphous so I don't really think that can provide much insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.157 (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can check here Mark Begich from On the Issues - Lestatdelc (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Is it sure, that Stevens doesn't request recount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.42.174 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ted Stevens had conceded defeat, so the prior question is obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.6.114 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Added resolved tag as the question of a recount is, as noted above, moot. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"His Croatian paternal grandfather John Begich immigrated to the United States from Austria–Hungary in 1911".

What's this about "immigrated to the United States from Austria–Hungary". I'm not going to revert as I doubt anyone really cares, but there are no encyclopedias that say, for example, "born in Austria-Hungary". It's not really a 'place', in the sense of any identity. Saying Austria-Hungary is much like saying someone born at the same time was born in the British Empire rather than Ireland or India. I will watch this article with amused interest. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

His paternal grandfather immigrated form the Austria-Hungary empire, which Croatia was a part of still in 1911. It gained independence in 1918 when the Austria-Hungary Empire desolved as a result of WWI. If you click through the link itself, it is the article on that specific national entity, of which Croatia, where Begich's grandfather came from, was still a part of. Lestatdelc (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not show Begich as the incumbent until he officially takes office on January 6.Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

GovSource reference makes no mention of Begich being a moderate Democrat. I've updated the reference to reflect current language.CFredkin (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks that were added to Mr. Ruedrich's statement about the Justice department being corrupt. While I'm not endorsing his statement, it is improper for a Wikipedia editor to change a quote without brackets to indicate a change from the original statement. Putting quotations around 'corrupt' implies that the speaker is not agreeing with the term; as Mr. Ruedich is a Republican partisan speaking about what he considered the illegitimate election of a Democrat, I have no doubt that he meant the word exactly as he said it and as it was reported in the cited article. DoctorEric (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This article currently includes the claim that "Begich's political views are considered to be moderate", which is not supported by the source. Any reliable sources for this? Or is it synthesis?

Also, the article includes an un-sourced claim that Begich supports drilling in ANWR. Any reliable sources for this?CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See Anchorage Daily News June 12, 2008: http://www.adn.com/article/20080612/begich-opening-anwr-key-energy-plan Activist (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article mentioned that Begich was born in 1962, elected to the Assembly at age 26, and then stepped down from the assembly after serving three years in 1988. Arithmetic indicates some errors in chronology.

Additionally, the first paragraph of the article indicated that he was elected mayor by a margin of 11 votes, but the details below indicate he was elected by an 8% margin. Again, assuming that there were more than 150 voters in Alaska's most populous city, arithmetic indicates an error. 66.58.154.96 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that the following list of campaign points is appropriate in the lead for this article. If it's going to stay in, we should add his support for PPACA.

"He is pro-choice, supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, gun rights, same-sex marriage, and opposes the Patriot Act."CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say he served three years in the Assembly; it says he was chairman for three years. Obviously you have to serve for some time before becoming chairman. The "eleven votes" quote is an obvious error which can be removed (he won by eleven votes over the victory margin, not eleven votes over his opponents). —Designate (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Begich's support for a carbon tax is well documented, as shown here and here. This is notable due to the importance of the energy industry to his home state and also based on the fact that it is referenced in multiple reliable sources.CFredkin (talk)

As noted below, it's election year robo-calls and attacks by the NRSC. Not really due weight or NPOV for the article, especially in the context you want to add it. Members of the oil and energy industry want it to be an issue, and really shouldn't be adding it to articles. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced to Forbes and Politico (among others), and the Forbes article doesn't mention the robo-calling. That definitely seems due weight. I'm merely noting his votes on the issue. However, I think the statement can be streamlined as follows:

In March 2013, Begich voted for an amendment by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse “to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring that all revenue from a fee on carbon pollution is returned to the American people".  He also voted against an amendment by Senator Roy Blunt which would have required 60 votes to establish a carbon tax in the future.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/29/australian-voters-energetically-reject-concocted-climate-crisis-and-carbon-tax-disasters/ | work=Forbes | title=Australian Voters Energetically Reject Concocted Climate Crisis And Carbon Tax Disasters}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/gop-alaska-mark-begich-carbon-tax-95974.html | work=Politico | title=GOP targets Alaska's Mark Begich over carbon tax}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00058 |title=S.Amdt. 646 to S.Con.Res. 8}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00059 | title=S.Amdt. 261 to S.Con.Res. 8}}</ref>

I agree with Dave, reporting in Begich's article what the NRSC are attacking him over is not relevant. Tiller54 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source from the Anchorage Daily News which testifies to the notability of the votes in Alaska.CFredkin (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a letter to the editor from one of the paper's readers. It's nothing of the sort. Tiller54 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, and it was published in a WP:reliable source. So far, I've provided articles from Forbes and Political and a letter to the editor from the Anchorage Daily News to indicate notability.CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

jAlso, the edit does not making any claims regarding Begich's support for a carbon tax. It merely presents the votes.CFredkin (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not a notable source. An op-ed by a Forbes contributor (which is something anyone can be) is not a notable source. Reporting on what the NRSC are attacking him over is not appropriate. Tiller54 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, campaign claims from before he was elected regarding his support for drilling in ANWR definitely don't cut it. That may have been acceptable before he was elected, since he hadn't held state or national office before and hadn't had a chance to actually do something about the issue. But now that he's been in office for 5 years, the fact that he has not actually done anything about the issue overrides any statements he made in his prior campaign.CFredkin (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He still holds the same position, that it should be opened for drilling. This is actually relevant to his bio. The fact that he "has not actually done anything about it" is because a single Senator can't do something like that. His support for gay marriage is also still relevant, despite it still being banned in Alaska. Tiller54 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A single senator can initiate a bill. That would count as action. I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it is that you're arguing that actual votes (mentioned in multiple, reliable, secondary sources) are not notable in his bio, but campaign statements are.CFredkin (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two of your sources are not reliable, the third is reporting on what the NRSC are attacking him over. Ads by campaign committees that twist votes to suit their narrative don't belong on any candidate's page. Tiller54 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As for ANWR, there is now a third reliable source detailing his support for drilling there. If you'd like to carry on adding NRSC talking points to a bio of Begich, may I suggest you edit this page instead. Tiller54 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I accept the Alaska Public Media citation that you added re ANWR drilling. However it's still ridiculous that you're defending mere rhetoric from Begich regarding ANWR and being pro-choice, but rejecting statements regarding actual votes from reliable, secondary sources. Which 2 exactly of the following sources is unreliable for the carbon tax votes: Forbes, Politico, and Anchorage Daily News?CFredkin (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"mere rhetoric from Begich regarding being pro-choice"? What on earth are you on about? Even a cursory glance of the sources shows that he has a pro-choice record. If you really don't understand why a letter to the editor is not a reliable source, you really shouldn't be here. Tiller54 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question....CFredkin (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) What's the 2nd supposedly unreliable source above? And where does it say at WP:reliable source that letters to the editor published in reliable sources are not reliable?CFredkin (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and read WP:RS and you'll find the answer to your question. Tiller54 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Unbelievable. You've got to be kidding me. Same as I've stated below and here. Dave Dial (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, my proposed edit (in the shaded box above) would include 3 secondary sources and 2 primary sources. The 3 secondary sources are Forbes, Politico, and the Anchorage Daily News. You object to the Politico source because it references robo-calling, the Forbes article because you don't like the author, and the ADN source because it's a letter to the editor which you claim is unreliable (although you're unable to reference the specific policy that supports that claim).CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Politico article is reporting on the NRSC's robopolls, which is not relevant to Begich's page. The letter that was in a newspaper and the Forbes article fail WP:RS, as you've had explained to you several times now. To quote: "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors... The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: [including] the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." Thus, a letter from Some Bloke to a newspaper fails WP:RS. An article by a Forbes contributor - not a journalist, a contributor, which anyone can become and publish anything, without oversight - also fails WP:RS. If you'd actually read WP:RS, you'd have understood why. Tiller54 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit seems like election year politics, not really enough importance to include in the article. Perhaps if it becomes a deciding factor in the upcoming election, it can be added with analysis, but now just seems to be a blip. Dave Dial (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See discussion above in "Carbon Tax".CFredkin (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The comment for reverting this edit indicated that one source is out of date and the other is not reliable. One source is to Begich's 2008 campaign web site. If there's some indication from a reliable source that he's changed his stance on cap-and-trade, then we can note that. But I don't believe a definitive statement on his support can be considered to expire.

Why would the Washington Examiner not be considered reliable?CFredkin (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If his 2008 site said that he supports cap and trade (or anything else), then we can confidently say that that was his position in 2008. But I think it's extrapolating to say that because that was his position then, then it is most certainly his position now. And in any case, saying that the cited text confirms that Begich supports cap and trade is a stretch even from the most charitable point of view.

Re: the Washington Examiner, I think it falls right on the line of RS and partisan publication. But the cited article in particular reads a lot like an opinion column (and, to the previous point, actually states that Begich "denies ever supporting" a carbon tax.) Arbor8 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you make some fair points. However the statement on his web site is pretty definitive:

"Mark Begich will support national legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through a cap and trade system."

I'll take another shot at editing based on your input.CFredkin (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New edits look good to me. Arbor8 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A previous editor posted a comment derived from a Washington Free Beacon article, going beyond the charges in that article to claim, in a clear violation of BLP and NPOV guidelines that an Alaskan lobbyist had bribed the Senator to obtain funding for a geothermal project. The article also claimed the utility had gone bankrupt, when it had in fact reorganized, divesting the geothermal project in the process. However, all three members of the Alaska delegation had supported the earmark and all received campaign contributions from the lobbyist, who represented numerous utilities and municipalities throughout Alaska, led in the period 2009-2014 by Rep. Don Young with $7,100, followed by Senator Lisa Murkowski ($5,500) and Begich ($5,100), per Open Secrets. Activist (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)