Jump to content

Talk:Jan Brewer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RealNaturopath (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 26 August 2010 (→‎Link to AZ State Auditors Report Naturopathic Licensing: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

LGBT Issues

According to the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star, it costs the state $3 million to cover domestic partners and $625 million for other employees and their dependents.[14]

This seems like a justification for stripping away rights from people. It doesn't belong in the article. It should at least be re-worded. 75.221.198.163 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cost is relevant, whether that cost is worth taking away rights is up to the reader.
Also note it's my opinion that gay marriage is a right, it's not everyones opinion and it doesn't have to be a universal truth, one could say reproduction capable marriage has more worth as it furthers the species and thus could deserves more validation without being undeniably wrong and evil and thus worthy of censorship, which Wikipedia does not do by the way. 72.208.6.122 (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know any info about her education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.49.4 (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the deal with the new wording? You cant even tell that it is referring to LGBT issues. I see a definite political bias here. i would correct it, but an admin decided to end all debate on this page. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this one note you wrote qualifies as "was determined"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dude, come on. Its clearly a Gay issue. I'm sorry but lets not tip-toe around this. Yes, you are right that technically it would in theory apply to all domestic partners. Just like a ban on circumcision could be argued to not be an anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish act because it could effect other groups, but clearly the intent of the law was to deny homosexuals government paid healthcare. The judge ruled it that way, LGBT groups are fighting for it, and it is crystal clear that a hard-right family values conservative was thinking and planning this when she planned this law. I am sorry she has a personal problem with homosexuality but that isnt my problem, and I wont help her hide her hatred under a whisy-whoshy term "domestic partners" Sorry if I sound mad it isnt my intention. I wont change it again for a while until this is settled. Travis in travisland (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I think we are on the same "side" w/ regards to homophobes. I simply know of a few heterosexual domestic partnerships that are affected as well; lumping them with "gays" won't really do it any service (Jon Doe: "it's only a gay issue, why should I care?") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Marble - why?

The beginning of the article mentions Sarah Jane Marble as an ancestor of Jan Brewer. Why is this important? Marble does not appear to have any claim to fame of her own, so why is she being listed as an ancestor? Most Americans have immigrant ancestors dating to the 19th century or earlier. Zilmaro (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fairly common to list information like this. From the Barack Obama page

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961[4] at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States,[5] to Stanley Ann Dunham,[6] an American of mostly English, but also German,[7] descent from Wichita, Kansas,[8] and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya Colony. Obama is the first President to have been born in Hawaii.[9][10] Obama's parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student on scholarship.[11][12] The couple married on February 2, 1961,[13] but separated when Barack Sr. went to Harvard University on scholarship, and divorced in 1964.[12] Obama Sr. remarried and returned to Kenya, visiting Barack in Hawaii only once, in 1971. He died in an automobile accident in 1982.[14]

from Ronald Reagon's wikipedia page

Ronald Reagan was born in an apartment on the second floor of a commercial building in Tampico, Illinois, on February 6, 1911, to John Edward "Jack" Reagan and Nelle Wilson Reagan.[2] Reagan's father was of Irish Catholic ancestry,[3] while his mother had Scots-English ancestors.[4

So the data should be re-included. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Gage (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. One thing that immediately jumps out with regards to the two examples is that all the family members listed had a direct effect on the life of the subject of the associated biography. The proposal here is to add an ancestor that, based upon average 19th century life spans, may not have even been alive at the time of Brewer's birth (the cited source gives no details on Marble's life beyond her arrival to New York City in 1886). Without evidence that the great-grandmother was either notable enough for a Wikipedia article or had a direct and significant effect on Brewer's life there is no reason for inclusion of this factoid. --Allen3 talk 14:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What jumps out most in the examples is that these are the parents of the subjects -- immediate family. Bustter (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As I said previously data like this is often included. Here is a quote from the Ambrose Bierce article

Bierce was born in Meigs County, Ohio to Marcus Aurelius Bierce (1799–1876) and Laura Sherwood Bierce.[2] His mother was a descendant of William Bradford.

William Bradford died on May 9, 1657 Ambrose Bierce was born on June 24, 1842. Based on the lifespans in that era I doubt he was still alive at the time of Ambrose's birth. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We realize that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because no one is willing to support your position does not mean it is alright to restate your position and pretend that multiple postings by a single person represents a meaningful consensus. --Allen3 talk 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, Bradford, as Governor of Plymouth, was a notable figure in his own right. No such claim can be made for Sarah Jane Marble. All Marble accomplished was emigration to the US, and that's no accomplishment, according to Brewer. Bustter (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the website you placed and find it irrelevant to the discussion. I restated what I wrote because it was obvious that it hadnt been read. At no point did I pretend there was a consensus, please do not put words in my mouth. Her immigration family history is relevant to this article. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a website, it's a "guidance essay" that exists because the more experienced hands at Wikipedia believe some might learn from it. Your behavior (pointing to the Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama articles as justification for Ms Marble's inclusion) is 'exactly' what this article describes. Perhaps you could read it more carefully. Anyway, the immediate families of Reagan and Obama are NOT the equivalent of the long-dead Ms Marble, nor is the well-known historical figure, William Bradford (Plymouth governor). Bustter (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Certificate

Is there a released online copy of her BC/immigration papers to prove she's a legal citizen? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good luck I been looking it for two weeks now. I guess we can forget about getting a long copy, we might have to settle for an announcement in a local newspaper. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father's death

Shouldn't we address Brewer's false claim that her father died in Germany fighting the Nazis, rather than 10 years later due to fumes he inhaled in a munitions factory?[1]? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was there until the article got protected status. See, Admins dont have to explain there actions. When they see people disagree with them they just freeze the page to end all debate. Welcome to wikipedia. Travis in travisland (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from AZterritory, 27 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} You have shown her as "a native of Glendale, AZ". She is NOT a native Arizonan! Below you show her born in Hollywood, Ca. Might want to clear this up, unless there is some question as to birth? Should be replaced with "a native of California".


AZterritory (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made that "born in California". Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Protected Statues

I vote it be removed from this article. It has done nothing to improve the article's quality in any way, and its only presence was to end debate. Travis in travisland (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad it was finally removed. As can be seen by the history of the page, no good came from it. Travis in travisland (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

controversial quantifier

I have added it to this article. I see no logical reason it shouldn't be included. If you doubt it is controversial I have serious doubts about how informed you might be. Travis in travisland (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition has been reverted as per WP:LABEL. The problem with qualifiers of this type is that they imply the presence of an issue while providing no explanation of the nature of the issue or evidence the condition actually exists. There as also WP:NPOV issues with this addition as the negative label is being applied only to Brewer's participation (why are her actions considered "controversial" while the actions of those opposed to her position are not considered "controversial"). --Allen3 talk 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bill is controversial. It is very hard to deny this. Spend a few minutes on the talk page if you dont believe me. If you want to mention that the opposition to the bill is controversial as well, be my guest. To remove it is too imply universal consent to the bill. Travis in travisland (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Sock Puppet

The article states, "Recently in defense of her bill her office produced a commercial featuring a singing frog sock puppet. [25]" This statement should either be dropped or it should be extended to say, "Recently in defense of her bill her office produced a commercial featuring a singing frog sock puppet which made fun of several prominent politicians who had not read SB 1070 before criticizing it. [25]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.32.202 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to wordy for me, I like the current wording. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll grant that the current wording is certainly biased, but I don't see that as a virtue.-69.199.32.202 (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bias in the current wording. She felt the a singing sock puppet would be an appropriate way to get her viewpoint across. Its a fact. Look on youtube and you can see the singing sock puppet for yourself.Travis in travisland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

disproven claim

Being in which no law enforcement agency made this claim and several have made counter-claims this has been disproven. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree here. Coroners, police officers, border patrol, and everyone else involved says they've never heard of anything like that, and I doubt she's ever personally marched through the desert herself. The same would apply if you asked someone to give more "proof" that there isn't a single green strawberry on the moon after you just said there was. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "Controversies" it should read the following: Brewer cut Department of Corrections spending by $67 million. In August 2010, three inmates (one convicted of murder) escaped from a private, medium-security prison. KTAR Several of Brewer's closest aids have ties to Arizona's private prison system. CBS 5 The inmates are suspected of murdering an Oklahoma couple in New Mexico.

68.3.24.113 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hm... WP:SYNTH... or what are you trying to imply? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: I think it is rather fallacious to imply (as the OP is doing) that Brewer's spending cuts directly or indirectly allowed the escapes to happen. The relevant logical fallacy would be post hoc ergo propter hoc—simply because the cuts occurred before the escape does not mean they caused it. Please provide a reliable source supporting your assertion. Intelligentsium 02:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, it should just read "Democrats and some Republicans have placed blame on Brewer for the escapes of three convicted criminals from a private prison in Arizona that led to a shootout and two deahts" AZCentral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.246.171 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some cursory research, the controversy s somewhat more complex, and the criticism of Brewer a bit more pointed. Part of the cost-cutting involves the privatizing of prisons -- putting responsibility in the hands of private enterprise who pay devoted attention to the bottom line, not so much to public's safety and well-being. I've only found the criticism among some non-notable blogs, but if there's a notable source it may be worth inclusion. Bustter (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's a notable source, article from an Arizona daily, documenting criticism that Brewer's administration bears responsibility for the escapees:

http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/article_526ad303-1689-5afe-961d-7e2aa070da8e.html Bustter (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need to expand info that her husband is also a public figure who practiced as a naturopathic physician for 30 years with a fake degree...

To leave the mention of her husband, John L Brewer, the way it is is misleading and pandering to a politician. He was a VERY powerful public figure in the naturopathic community and much of his untouchability came from his wife's political power. If he decided a naturopath did not pay proper homage, he blocked their ability to get licensed in the state. This man hurt lots of people and performed invasive physical exams on males and females and wrote prescriptions for drugs that he was not trained or licensed to do as a chiropractor. If you remove these articles every 30 days because they offend your political sensibilities, I'll just repost them.

Arizona Republic May 12, 2001 NATUROPATHIC BOARD VOTES TO FIRE CHIEF ALLEGATIONS TIED TO CREDENTIALS, PAPER SHREDDING Arizona Republic - Phoenix, Ariz. Author: Kerry Fehr-Snyder Date: May 12, 2001 Start Page: B.5 Section: Valley & State Text Word Count: 258


Document Text The state board responsible for licensing naturopathic doctors fired its executive director Friday, with one member arguing that the "appearance and climate" of wrongdoing and ill will were enough to justify his removal. John L. Brewer, a retired chiropractor who had spent more than 10 years working for the board, was fired on a 4-1 vote after a second day of contentious meetings. Both meetings were opened to the public at Brewer's request. Brewer is married to Maricopa County Supervisor Jan Brewer. The only member who voted against Brewer's dismissal was Frank Sweet, a naturopathic doctor based in Lake Havasu. Earlier this week, allegations that Brewer had shredded public documents and fudged his credentials surfaced. He was escorted from his office and placed on administrative leave. Although the board never proved Brewer was guilty of the charges, board member Konrad Kail maintained, "The thing that concerns me is the appearance ... and the climate between the executive director and the board." Brewer's attorneys emphasized that he received a glowing job appraisal and was recommended for a raise just three months ago. The sudden change in opinion seemed to come from two newcomers: Kip Micuda, who was appointed to the board a month ago, and Melissa Cornelius, who was named to the board two months ago. "This smacks of what can only be deemed as a public assassination of my client," attorney Darrow Soll said. John Brewer said he was insulted and embarrassed by the proceedings. His attorneys said they were weighing their options regarding an appeal or lawsuit.

NATUROPATHIC BOARD DIRECTOR ON LEAVE Arizona Republic - Phoenix, Ariz. Author: Kerry Fehr-Snyder Date: May 11, 2001 Start Page: B.6 Section: Valley & State Text Word Count: 389

Document Text The executive director of the state board that oversees naturopathic doctors was placed on administrative leave Thursday amid allegations that he shredded documents, copied exams and fudged his credentials. John L. Brewer, husband of Maricopa County Supervisor Jan Brewer, denied the allegations, saying he is the target of a "disgruntled employee." The action against Brewer came after a contentious public meeting with the Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners. Naturopaths include chiropractors and those who generally use massage, herbal remedies and other "alternative medicines." Leading the charge was board member Kip Micuda, a relative newcomer whose suggestion to fire Brewer was not backed by the other three members in attendance. "If Dr. Brewer was doing a bang-up job and this agency were doing great, this wouldn't be an issue," Micuda said. The board is scheduled to meet again today to determine Brewer's fate. On Tuesday, Micuda and the Capitol police escorted Brewer out of his office and told him to work from home while the board discussed the allegations. "Dr. Brewer was destroying documents, which was a great concern to me," Micuda said, adding that he had received complaints from staffers. Brewer, who makes $52,000 a year in the job, denied that he shredded anything. Even if he had, board member Frank Sweet questioned whether Brewer did anything wrong. "I shred documents in my office at 7 a.m. all the time, trashy stuff," Sweet said. But Melissa Cornelius, an assistant attorney general, said the allegation was enough to warrant barring Brewer from his office. "You have an obligation to the public" record, she said. The other accusations -- that Brewer photocopied exams and faked his credentials -- were less clear. Brewer has worked for the board for about 10 years in various capacities, including as a board member. Micuda said the credentials came into play after he discovered Brewer did not receive a naturopathic degree from a college in Los Angeles as he had claimed. The college has not bestowed such a degree since 1948. An independent check with the college, now known as Southern California University of Health Sciences, showed Thursday that Brewer earned a chiropractic degree in 1970. Brewer said after the meeting that he didn't recall what he had listed on his license application, saying that he only remembers being asked what college he had attended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Naturopathic%20Physicians,%20Board%20of%20Medical%20Examiners/Performance/00-9/00-9.pdf

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jan_Brewer&oldid=381162893"