Talk:Paul LePage

I've removed most of the political positions section because it lacked any sources. Besides, he will be Governor in a week and his positions won't matter; it will be about his time in office.--TM 23:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure politicians of both parties would be happy if their campaign positions were judged irrelevant once they were elected, but Wikipedia does report what statements they made. I agree with you, though, that the exposition of positions should be properly sourced. JamesMLane t c 02:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That section previously had sources, but they were removed by this edit. Just thought I'd point that out, in case anyone wants to convert those bare links into inline citations and add the positions back to the article. –BMRR (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

His previously stated positions do matter very much. Please don't go removing this section wholesale again. It was a lot of work to summarize concisely from different sources. As BMRR pointed out, the section was originally cited with links. I've converted the bare links to citations. I expect this section to evolve as time passes, but the information here is highly relevant and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondoggle15 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed them again -- cites in a section heading do not take the place of cites for specific points, and as this is a WP:BLP, we particularly need it to be referenced properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is not for covering every incident which makes news coverage for a day or two. I am not sure which sections need to be removed, but there is far too much coverage of every incident which has happened during the past three months.--TM 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't add a new paragraph every time he says a bad word or calls someone a not-so-nice name; on the other hand, this is how he presents himself and he doesn't make any apologies for it; and certainly when a governor tells the president to go to hell, or refuses to meet with the NAACP and then tells them to kiss his butt, those are not ordinary comments/behaviors from a governor. –BMRR (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The NAACP comment is front page news, but the daughter/secretary hiring bit is certainly much less important. The NAACP comment made it to the New York Times and elsewhere far outside of Maine, which I think may be an important indicator of lasting importance. The Homestead Exemption bit is also stressed far too much. I am not a LePage supporter, but the article has an overall negative tone.--TM 20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the homestead exemption section seemed a bit lengthy, relative to its importance. It was in the newspapers for several weeks, both here and in Florida, but ultimately the LePages were not charged with any crime. If that section can be made a bit shorter, that would probably be a good thing. The section about the hiring of his daughter could be made shorter as well. –BMRR (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As the author (I need to open an account, I know) of today's section on controversial statements, I sensed an evolving theme that, I fear, will likely continue. The Obama and NAACP quotes did reverberate nationally--one such quote is an isolated incident, two is a pattern and three . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.197.130 (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No you don't :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside what I wrote above, I think the inclusion of the full quote, including the bit about having a Black son, should be included in the NAACP section. It may have been pared down a bit too much.--TM 15:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Black son" assertion apparently needs to be qualified a bit. "LePage often refers to 25-year-old Devon Raymond of Jamaica as his "adopted son." And although the governor and his wife are putting Raymond through college, and Raymond has attended LePage family gatherings with the LePage's other children on a regular basis since the age of 17, Raymond has not been formally adopted. He is also not a U.S. citizen. " http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/14846/Default.aspx If he considers him his son, without having taken legal steps to make it so, that's all well and good -- I'm not going to define his family for him. However, we should clarify it here to avoid confusion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another article on that subject can be found in today's Maine Sunday Telegram: –BMRR (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes eminent sense to me that someone who was not formally adopted himself by at least two families, would consider this child to be adopted. Paul LePage's informal adoptions (as a child) should be mentioned in the article, imho.

I also don't see why this whole issue is being discussed under "recentism" , and suggest that further discussion re. the adoptions be continued under an appropriate subsection header. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

LePage's transition website says:

"As head of LePage and Kasevich, a private consultancy, he has provided chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer services and advice to banks, law firms, client companies, insurance companies, bankruptcy courts and trustees."^[1]

This article said:

"he served as head of LePage and Kasevich, a private consultancy, where he has provided chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer services and advice to banks, law firms, client companies, insurance companies, bankruptcy courts and trustees."

I will look for another source which is not WP:SELF, and I will rephrase the information before putting it back in the article. -KeptSouth (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I found a source, added it, and included additional information about his business career. --KeptSouth (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me we need a new section, to go along with the Statements by LePage, "Misstatements by LePage"--the name on the deed, the adopted son, the NAACP's demand that he meet only with black prisoners? Admittedly I am not a LePage supporter but it seems he creates new fodder for the Criticisms section daily, if not hourly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birch13 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule or guideline that says we're not supposed to put the children's names in the infobox (or elsewhere in the article)? I took a look at a few other governors' articles — Deval Patrick, John Lynch, Andrew Cuomo, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Bob McDonnell — and they all have their children listed in their infoboxes. I understand not wanting to probe too deeply into the LePage Family's private life, but this is public information, there are plenty of reliable sources to back it up, and his children are all adults. –BMRR (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Please see WP:BLPNAME regarding the presumption of privacy, and Template:Infobox Person, for an explanation of the field for children. KeptSouth (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For a few examples of state level politicians whose bios do not mention their children in the infobox or only give the number, please see Nathan Deal, John Kasich, Mike Beebe, Robert J. Bentley Daniel Webster (Florida politician), Sean Parnell, Pat Quinn, Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we just agree to leave this out? The article states it's an entry-level position, and that it wasn't illegal to hire her, so what's it matter? (Proud 61%-er here, but still...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We can probably limit it, but it should not be left out. It made major headlines.--TM 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I know we have to be careful to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, but I think this section is worth keeping because in many U.S. states it would be illegal. –BMRR (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of illegality (Wikipedia has no rule about requiring illegality for a controversial issue to be covered in an article). It's a question of whether something got a lot of media coverage. This did. It's worth a few sentences. (See WP:UNDUE.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood. My reason for mentioning the legality/illegality was in response to SarekOfVulcan's comment. –BMRR (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not a question of whether something got a lot of media coverage. Explicitly, "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we've moved off personal opinion (... "so, what's it matter?") and off of the issue of "legality", and are now focusing on what Wikipedia rules are. So it's odd that WP:NRVE, which is part of WP:Notability, has been mentioned. Notability is about the question of whether an article should exist or not. Notability is not about whether a part of an article should exist. For that, WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP are more relevant.

I just did a Google search on "Paul LePage" daughter job. There were 91,500 results. (On the news side, it looks like several hundred mentions.) I think we do a disservice to readers if we omit a news story (not "tabloid journalism") that has gotten so much attention. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"paul lepage" retard gets 63,400 results. Pardon my language, but don't give people that shit with google results. No one ever cares and it is worthless for calling for more weight in an article.

What does everyone think now that the election is more than a year gone, now? Personally, reading this article was almost useless. Speaking as a Southern Californian Democrat, I really couldn't give a shit less about 90% of the stuff written on this page. Honestly, a governor who gets a job for his daughter? Dear Lord, the humanity! Lul. I think an synops needs to get in here, throw out all the partisan editors who are obssessed with going over LePage's record with a knit comb and try to get this article back on track. Until then it's just an ugly reminder of why professors hate Wikipedia.

This section is far too long given the relative lack of importance. Thoughts on shrinking it?--TM 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. It was covered by both Portland and Bangor. I suppose some would figure it about right. It is current; I'd suggest we give it a little time before we shrink it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it is current does not make it encyclopedic. The section is larger than other sections which have been covered far more extensively and with far greater repercussions. Let's leave the current events for the newspapers to report on and make a lasting encyclopedic, shall we?--TM 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you need to read the link you have provided and you will find that Wikipedia does not suggest that articles be edited to "make a lasting encyclopedic". We are quite the opposite in that we have no publishing deadline - information can be adjusted as time goes on. At any rate, I note that this story has been picked up by several national news sources and was mentioned on several television stations this morning. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's quite interessting Why are the governors of America saying such dumb things? salon.com87.164.126.8 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What happenned to his first wife? Were they divorced or is he a widower? --Bertrc (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That section strikes me as a lot of weight on a thoughtless comment. I'd suggest we remove it, and only re-add it if it turns out to have long-term notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am admittedly biased, as I've added that section, but LePage makes a point of having a "plainspoken style", so I feel it is reasonable to point out when his style gets him into trouble. The fact that numerous Maine political figures have commented on it one way or another would seem to suggest it will have staying power. I don't think it's a simple "thoughtless comment", as LePage made a point of putting it in his speech himself. It is also relevant to point out his criticism of the ACA. I'd be open to slimming it down but I don't think it should be completely removed. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm from Maine and it has rec'd an enormous amt of coverage here. I'll admit I've become a little jaded after working on the Elizabeth Warren article... I don't think it should be removed all-together, but it is long... Gandy dancer <span style="color:gold">golden </span> (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Opps, I guess that it's back to the drawing board to work on getting some color in my name! :D Gandy dancer <span style="color:gold">golden </span> (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done some shortening and condensing. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

LePage is managing to keep this in the news, doubling down on his comments today in Vermont. 331dot (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hint: when an article about a comment that is six words or less is, word-for-word, about the same size as *all the information the article has on all his positions* then you know one of two things. 1. You need to work more on understanding and detailing his postions. 2. Your article about some comment nobody in the wider U.S. gives a flying fuck about is too damn long. In this case, both are true. If this article is ever going to graduate from "lulzy-fail" to something worthwhile, all work on soundbite outrage needs to stop. Focus some energy on, you know, what he stands for. LGBT rights' section is a standing joke. Work on that. Or, hell, just keep adding to the already lul-worthy 'plainspoke style and faux outrage' section.

I cut it way down. I am not a LePage supporter, but this whole episode was just nuts. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill... Perhaps in time it can be cut back further. Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow that was long before. I would say it could definitely even be shortened more. Because I am not very familiar with the incident and it's currently news I don't want to get too involved, but at least figured I would chime in here. MinorColossal (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done. It's a modest step in the right direction.

Re some comment nobody in the wider U.S. gives a flying fuck about; I thought the whole point of this was for people to read and learn something. Re "need to work on his positions"; I am not the sole author here, so I shouldn't be held responsible for the entire article(and I have added to his positions)

As said above, LePage makes a point of his plainspoken style, and when he has a pattern of getting himself into trouble, it deserves to be mentioned. I'm not necessarily opposed to the shortening in and of itself, but quotes from Democrats and others critical of the comment initially have been removed, while quotes from Republicans have been left; this seems one-sided.

Lastly, I don't appreciate the unnecessary obscenities directed at me. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There haven't been any obscenities directed at you. [[User:]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.54.45 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly am not being critical of 331dot's editing--I think s/he did an excellent job. In my experience with editing it is the norm to eventually trim a section down after the dust settles. I did the best I could and tried to be fair but have no problem if others feel my edit needs improvement--not that I might not argue it as well. Re the union/some unions change--actually two unions were mentioned, one was later in the article. I kept all the sources and the info can be found there. Gandydancer (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on that union comment. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was the "Statements by LePage" header removed, along with the line following it? 331dot (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Over half of this article, I feel, could be shortened to one paragraph, perhaps two and on the outside three. LePage said this, a relevant critic or critics (i.e. not the critics of source 68) said this and Paul responded thus. Criticisms should and could be shortened to something along the lines of one section 'Plainspoken Style' and with another 'Policy Criticisms.' Taking a few sentences from each current sub-header and eliminating "Hiring of family members" and "President Obama" by either integrating the information there or simply eliminating it altogether would be a solid step in the right direction. 108.81.54.45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.88.20 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be like reducing the Michael Phelps article to "He won a lot of medals" or the Abraham Lincoln article to "He was President and was assassinated". I'm not opposed to the concept of rearrangement or restructuring but there shouldn't be wholesale removal of information or reducing everything to snippets. Nepotism by a politician is relevant and should not be removed, especially when it creates controversy as it did with his daughter. Discussing his "plainspoken style" is meaningless without knowing what is behind it. These aren't one-off minor comments listed here(if they were there would be a lot more), they are comments which created major controversies and were talked about extensively. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be a building consensus that there's something wrong with the article, fundamentally, but I'm afraid this is Wikipedia. One or two obstructionists can get away with a lot. I'm going to try to raise awareness about this article and hopefully we can get some movement towards a better article. HappyHippo69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you indirectly calling me an "obstructionist" which would seem to not match Assume Good Faith, as it implies my views are in bad faith to thwart anything that happens here. Two people also does not make a consensus. I said that I don't mind rearragement/restructuring or other actual improvements, but I do oppose the wholesale removal of information, especially that which is not positive. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

LePage has said that he will not attend the National GOP Convention unless the Ron Paul delegation approved at the controversial state convention is seated. I think this is notable information given that as Governor he would be expected to attend, however I am unsure as to where it should be placed. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be strongly against including this. Perhaps if it blows up into something bigger, but not at this point. Gandydancer (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is early to include it now, but if he indeed does not attend, it is certainly noteworthy that the highest GOP elected official in Maine is refusing to attend his party's convention in protest of the makeup of his state's delegation. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, no politician's page should have a separate controversies section. This used to be a common practice, but was stopped on most pages as it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. There were wiki projects to do this for presidential candidates, but I guess statewide official pages were ignored. For example, Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee had long controversy sections that were eliminated. Please keep in mind that I am absolutely not suggesting to remove something potentially negative, but rather keep it all in a chronological and neutral context rather than in a separate controversy section. Again, this is a common wiki practice - prior to running for president, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Giuliani, McCain, Fred Thompson, Chris Dodd and many others had controversy sections. MavsFan28 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me as long as the actual information is not removed, as you stated. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dot. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started to integrate some of the criticism section into the article, though more work is needed. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing section today. B-watchmework (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The controversies section was eliminated long ago- but there was no problem with the information, which is all cited and accurate. All of the information that was removed was significant news when each item occurred and is representative of how the Governor conducts himself. Even some fellow party members concede that, so it's not bias. Removing that content essentially removes what he is known for from the article. I have made sure to put response from LePage or his fellow party members along with the other side whenever significant news about something LePage did is made. I agree it should not be worded as "controversies" but it is part of his term as Governor. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dot, have you restored all of the deleted material? I will revert every delete from now on that is not discussed on the talk page. It is not WP editing policy for one lone editor to suddenly decide that they will just delete most of a controversy section. Controversy goes with being in politics and this governor has certainly earned what he's got here. Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The original purpose of this section of discussion was to essentially suggest not having a separate "controversies" section- and as I said above- I understand not having such a section as long as the information is in the article, which it is(it was worked into the appropriate sections for either his campaign or his term in office). As I also stated above, I do my best to be fair and present all sides of the issue; and I certainly welcome efforts by others to ensure fairness- but not if it means wholesale removal of information that is cited. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. Also, it seems that it was said that dead links were removed. The editor is perhaps not aware that it is WP policy to not remove dead links. The editor should have just marked them dead. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The section about Congdon and his comments is more about him than about LePage(only saying that LePage removed him) so I'm wondering if it should be placed elsewhere, either in a separate article or some other location. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right--it's not about LePage. I'd just delete it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove it; if someone wants it elsewhere, they know what to do. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How is the bit about him being the first Maine Governor to use social media worthy of being in the article? It is a very obscure fact that should be removed in my opinion. Xxavyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Firsts by a major politician are notable, especially when they involve the performance of his duties(such as the State of the State address). 331dot (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the significance of CREW's opinion of LePage? I'm sure there are groups that think the opposite(that he's the best governor), do we need to list them too? 331dot (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there enough about his term of office to spin off into another article, much like Governorship of Chris Christie? 331dot (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so--far from it, in fact. The rest of them need to live with their good, bad, and ugly actions on their own article page and he should too. The Christy scandal is quite different, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've restored some deleted material about LePage's meetings with individuals alledged to have been associated with the Sovereign Citizens movement. Without an explanation of what the participant's discussed in these meetings, the reader who isn't familiar with the term "Sovereign Citizens movement" wouldn't know why such meetings would be newsworthy. The newspaper articles about this incident all mention that these sovereign citizens alluded to executing leaders of the state legislature - in fact, that's in the headline of the cited Bangor Daily News article. However, the previous version of the text only mentioned the execution claim in order to say that the participants deny it: all that version of the text says about the matter is: "Two of the men who had met with LePage rejected the claims of ties to the "sovereign citizen movement" and denied any discussions of executions took place." The reader has no context about who the men were supposed to have discussed executing or why, only that they say they didn't discuss it. The editor making the change claimed that "the value to readers [of the content removed] is nil", but I don't think that the sovereign citizens group or its ideology are widely familiar to readers, so the specific things that these men said in the meetings, as well as the actions that the governor took on their behalf, are relevant. GabrielF (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The contentious beliefs of third parties require strong secondary sourcing that they hold the beliefs for an article specifically about those people. 2. Where no source exists that LePage holds the beliefs, the insertion of rumours and innuendo is improper under WP:BLP. This is an article about a living person and under no circumstances should we insert such "beliefs" into LePage's BLP - he could meet with the Dalai Lama and we would still not then insert the Dalai Lama's unsourced contentious beliefs into any BLP other than that of the Dalai Lama. Parenthetical, poorly sourced, contentious claims about living persons are required to be removed by Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

LePage has specifically denied that he discussed executing Democratic leaders with the SC's here, which should permit at least a mention of that in the article. The said Democratic leaders also criticized LePage for the meetings here and for validating their violent ideas. There is also an audio recording of the men he met with discussing the issue on their own here which demonstrates that they hold those views. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, what's being inserted into the article is not what these people believe, but what they discussed at a series of meetings. The material is well-sourced - in fact, one of the members discussed it himself on his own radio show. Here's Maine Public Radio's description:

Here's Politico, citing public records requests about the meetings:

There's nothing "parenthetical" or poorly sourced here. What's newsworthy about this incident is the fact that discussions on these topics took place. Multiple reliable secondary sources reported these claims.

Note that you've also removed material on LePage's actions - summoning a sheriff. You haven't addressed the fact that your edit leaves the denial in place, but does not discuss what is being denied.GabrielF (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You do not have strong reliable secondary sources for your claims as to the beliefs of the people, that they are members of a movement, and absolutely nothing to connect LePage with the contentious beliefs. Other than those teensy violations of WP:BLP, you just seem to wish to include WP:OR and what you [[WP:KNOW|know}} to be the "truth." I suggest you not edit material with which you appear to old such strong views, by the way. See WP:PIECE. Collect (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see an editor accuse a fellow editor of impropriety when it is not warrented. The Bangor Daily News is certainly acceptable RS. Wikipedia is not accusing LePage of anything, and the reader can make his/her own decision about LePage's state of mind. Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)