Talk:Joe Miller (Alaska politician)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

random unsigned comment

Joe Miller is one of two candidates running in the U.S. Senate Republican Primary in Alaska. He's been endorsed by many current and former legislators as well as the former governor of Alaska.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pa1985 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Other news sites referencing Joe Miller

Here are three of hundreds of news stories about Joe Miller:

New York Times

Washington Post

CNN Politics

Paraserv (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

I added the usual links for congressional candidates. Perhaps some of their material could be used to expand this article. Flatterworld (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


The information relating a possible Murkowski run after the election is not relevant to the Joe Miller article. They are better suited for the general election article.--TM 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing "possible" about Murkowski's run. She's in:

The Wikipedia article calls Miller's wife a "teacher." She identified herself as such when Sarah Palin appointed her to the state judicial panel, in an effort to seat anti-choice judges. But there is some question as to whether she has ever worked a day in a classroom as a paid teacher. Can anyone supply such info, as to where and when she occupied such a position, what her credentials are? If it's not verifiable, it shouldn't be in the article which is largely taken from Miller's campaign literature.


It seems evident from the issues listed here as endorsed by Miller that he is a classical isolationist, yet I don't see the term applied anywhere? At the least, a link to the topic would be relevant. (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not seem evident from the issues listed here that Miller is an isolationist. That is merely the opinion of an anon editor. We don't edit article based upon the mere opinion of a Wikipedian. If you have a relevant, notable, reliable source that makes this case then that could potentially be appropriate for the article--assuming that it is worked into the article with a neutral point of view. You haven't provided any of that. All you have provided is your opinion--which is not notable.--InaMaka (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, your hostile and pathetically ad-hominem verbal abuse suggests that you are fully incapable of an objective look at the subject. I will point out here that I have not written anything to merit such treatment, and thus the simple fact that you pour it out gives a very telling insight into your person. If you are a friend of Miller's, he surely has no need for enemies.

Second of all, the definition of Isolationism given by the Wikipedia-article on the subject should suffice. I shall quote it to save you the mental strain of looking it up: "Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

  1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
  2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states."

The first part, non-interventionism, is explicitly addressed in the "Political Positions" section of this article under the headers "cut the budget of American funding for the United Nations" and "reduce American foreign aid". I agree that Miller's stance on protectionism is less explicit, as he has so far refused to comment on the issue "free trade" (see, but he has remarked that a balanced American budget has priority over any foreign issues, which cannot be taken any other way than to mean that the US economy is favored over the world market.

If you are unable to respond to this in a civilized manner, I kindly request you refrain from commenting at all. (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to point out, if you haven't already noticed, that the only hostility and ad ad hominem attacks are in your own posts. Hairhorn (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Military Record

Miller left the Army five or six years before his obligation to serve was up. Is anyone aware of the circumstances for such an unusual departure?

His bio [1] shows the dates he was in the military:
Graduation from West Point on 24 May 1989, Honorable Discharge (Active Duty) on 01 September 1992. 3 years, 3 months 8 days.
Honorable Discharge (Reserve Component) 30 May 1997.
So his total service was just over 8 years, but he did it "backwards" -- he did what's called a "three and five" and not a "five and three."
From the West Point web page [2] a West Point graduate is supposed to do five years active duty followed by three years reserve time (if the officer does not continue on active duty). However that page was retrieved in 2010. In 1989 (or 1985 when Mr. Miller first attended) the rules may have been different.
The reasons for his 3/5 aren't stated on his web page. There may be some administrative rule that kicked in, but unless another document comes to light or Mr. Miller clarifies we'd just be guessing. E5z8652 (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He was awarded a Bronze Star, one assumes for "meritorious service," rather than for valor. The former were given out like MREs in the army, though they maintain substantial integrity in the USMC.

Mr. Miller served in the Army, so Marine Corps eligibility requirements aren't relevant. However you can see the text of Mr. Miller's Bronze Star on his campaign web site [3] and yes it is an achievement Bronze Star and not a valor Bronze Star. It appears to be an end of tour award for his deployment during the Gulf War. This would only be relevant if he claimed it was for valor, which he is not. Mr. Miller merely claims that it was awarded for his "leadership in combat." Given that 1) he was a leader, and 2) he was in combat (evidence seen in his gulf war OER) he is perfectly correct in making that statement.E5z8652 (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
1. I doubt very seriously the Bronze Star holds anymore weight in the USMC than the Army. It's the same award and it has always doubled as a medal that can be given for meritorious combat service or valor. The Army Commendation Medal can be awarded with a V device as well. The Silver Star can only be given for valor hence no V device. Your assertion is crap.

2. He served during a time when the active duty Army was drawn down. Many officers were given early outs on their Active Duty service in the period after the Gulf War(not for doing anything wrong but in order to make the Active Duty force smaller) and a lot of these officers chose to finish in the Reserve or Guard. Heck, he could have completed active duty time in the Reserve as well, that would have counted toward the 5 year total. Regardless, he did his 8 years that all officers are obligated to do when they are commissioned(regardless of the commissioning source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Miller seems to be a theocrat. Why is there zero mention of this in his bio?

While he rails against government handouts, he may be the recipient of farm subsidies.

His campaign brags on his appointment as Magistrate in Tok, an isolated community 200 miles from the nearest movie theatre. I think that any paralegal would be legitimately entitled and qualified to serve in that backwater. Anyone have better info?

He has studiously avoided taking any position on the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why is he so silent on the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talkcontribs) 15:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC) From the Alaska Bar Association website, announcing a current opening for "Non-Attorneys":

Minimum Qualifications: Citizen of the United States and of the State of Alaska; must be at least 21 years of age; and must be a resident of Alaska for at least six months immediately preceding appointment as magistrate. Persons appointed to Magistrate are required to file financial disclosure statements with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talkcontribs) 21:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tok is a small town in the middle of nowhere, although nowhere near the smallest or most isolated community in the interior as it is as the intersection of two important highways. I'm sure being a magistrate there is not the pinnacle of success by any standard, but that doesn't mean that just anyone can walk in and get appointed. This is the way things work in Alaska. I know a teacher who did their first year in King Cove, a place they had no desire whatsoever to live, because it was a way to get in the system and open he door to a more desirable job. It's a very, very big state, an awful lot of it is "backwater" as you say, but that does not meant he citizens of those areas are valued less or deserve a lower grade of public servants. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


"Miller claimed during an interviews" It must be : interview, with no "s".

Actually it was the other way around, the day after the incident he gave multiple interviews to national cable networks while continuing to snub the Alaskan press corps. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in the real world

I feel so weird writing about this. I can't believe that what Hopfinger was onto was that Miller had engaged in sockpuppetry to gain an advantage in a dispute! Of course that's not the language the press is using, but it is exactly what he did, using multiple computers to try and influence the results of a poll. I just had to say it somewhere because it freaked me out when I realized exactly what this was all about. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The language in this 28 October story is more direct, and I was about to add its ref, with associated content about the corresponding write-in campaign, to the relevant section. I refrained from doing so only because it would probably quickly become a broken link. The Guardian employs an annoying procedure of putting the date in their URLs and then moving the article to a different URL after a little time has passed. Does anyone who knows how to use webcite, or related archival services, want to add it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup template

I added a tag to the positions section because it currently reads like a random list of positions and many sentences are lacking in grammar. BS24 (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Media bias caught on tape should be added

Media bias has been caught on tape. Will people please review the following then someone add something appropriate to this Wiki page:

Sample quote: "Employees at a CBS affiliate in Anchorage left an accidental voicemail for an aide to GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller in which they discussed and laughed about the possibility of reporting on the appearance of sex offenders at a Miller rally. And they chatted about responding with a Twitter alert to “any sort of chaos whatsoever” including the candidate being punched.'"

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with a biographical article on Joe Miller? Supposed phone calls of people talking about something they might do? Take your own biases elsewhere, bub. (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The stories are directly relevant to Joe Miller. The stories involve tapes of media conversations that the media sources admit they made. If it is true the media is conspiring against Joe Miller, is that not encyclopedic?
As Wikipedians, our job is to improve articles. I have properly brought the matter to the Talk page for consideration. Your personal attack about my supposed bias and your derogatory tone violates WP:AGF and does nothing to advance the interests of the Wikipedia project. Please consider addressing the issues raised instead of the individual editors raising them. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue has been addressed. The anon shouldn't have accused you of biases but I agree with the rest of the comment that this incident is unimportant. JamesMLane t c 07:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't investigate this at any length ( my computer is preventing me from hearing the audio files for some reason ) but I will observe that Andrew Breitbart has a history of egregiously misrepresenting people's statements. See Andrew_Breitbart#Controversies and investigate the underlying controversies if you really want to see examples of creating attack "news" stories through misrepresentation. The WSJ is fine, but Breitbart's not a reliable source for our purposes on Wikipedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I was not suggesting the use of those three sources. They were merely suggested as a starting point for discussion of this issue. The underlying sources they present may be reliable.
For example, you can actually hear the message yourself, you don't need Breitbart. For example, the media source actually admitted it accidentally left the message, you don't need Breitbart. Breitbart's having news stories containing reliably sourced information does not mean that very reliably sourced information becomes unreliable simple because Brietbart reported it.
Further, WP:RS requires each potential RS to be examined in context. Statement's such as "Breitbart's not a reliable source for our purposes on Wikipedia" evidence a misunderstanding of WP:RS. It shows that a particular editor feels no context ever be considered despite what WP:RS requires. That editor would be incorrect.
Most such editors who feel one side's sources are never reliable happen to also feel their own side's sources are almost always reliable, and that indicates potential WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOX problems. I'm not saying or implying anything specific about OhioStandard as I am complying with WP:AGF.
Breitbart or the sources he cites may be perfectly reliable here--I don't know, I'm not examining it that closely at this moment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought about adding this to the article on the election itself yesterday and ultimately rejected the idea. A Tea Party candidate claiming the media is biased against them is hardly a new development. Clearly the guy who can't operate his cell phone is not the brightest star in the sky, and KTVA has admitted that there was some unprofessional discussion in the message but they claim that if you could actually hear the entire discussion it was about what they might do if these hypothetical t situations actually happened. This is a very minor footnote to this election as even if the Miller camp were right about what is actually being discussed it never actually happened, and it's obviously way too late now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I generally agree with some of what you said. The problem is this type of incident seems to be repeating, like with the Christine O'Donnell ads not being aired because the station forgot (see also here), and each time it is characterized as a very minor footnote to the election, if the MSM reports it at all. If it is so minor, why does the media do this? If the races are so close that a few hundred votes makes the difference, it is conceivable the media manipulation was the tipping point. It is inherent if unwitting bias to say such incidents are minor and don't amount to much. I think it is more encyclopedic to accurately report the incidents, provide various RSs, then let the readers decide how to choose to interpret the information. For us to make a decision beforehand introduces the very POV we are trying to avoid. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In a sensitive topic such as this, I would like it if we could avoid weasel words as much as possible and attribute ideas to the people making them. I am not going to tolerate language such as "Some people say". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I do not believe calling someone a "serial liar" in an edit summary is really appropriate. Truthsort (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
One purpose of the edit summary is to explain the reasoning for the edit. In this instance, my reasoning was based in part on my assessment of the source's credibility. On the basis of ample facts, I've formed the opinion that Breitbart is a serial liar, so it's appropriate for me to provide that explanation. The edit summary is not subject to WP:NPOV. (Of course, the article should not use that phrase, except in an attributed report of someone's opinion.) JamesMLane t c 13:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

I realize given the nature of Wikipedia, that articles here with any partisan heat are to be taken with a massive grain of salt, and I really have no idea why I am even bothering, but seriously?

"Miller stated at a town hall meeting that he believed the Berlin Wall was an example of a nation taking effective measures to control illegal immigration", from Wikipeida being used to describe this quote from Miller: "The first thing that has to be done is secure the border. . . East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could, we could"

And perhaps this is fairly recent news, but there is no mention that the TV station KTVA went on to fire two people regarding the Breitbart report. Aepryus (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can think of a better way to phrase the East Germany thing, go ahead. The thing is that the whole comment is nonsense. East Berlin was walled off to keep people from leaving not to stop the unending flow of immigrants flocking to East Germany's green pastures and bright future. If you have a good source for those firings I don't see any reason that can't be included. I still think it is a minor footnote but if we are going to cover it here we should tell the whole story. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
His point was simply that it is possible to stop the flow of people across a border if you really try. No where is he remotely saying that the East Germans were trying to keep people out. But, I agree with you in that the comment is nonsense; since I doubt the techniques applied by the East Germans; (i.e, kill zones; mine fields, etc) would be an appropriate way to protect US borders. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned, just that it should be characterized accurately. Aepryus (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor name

Hopfinger incident? It not called that except here. Renaming to Journalist detained - a title that describes the contents per the MOS. Few people know who Mr. Hopfinger is, and calling this section Hopfinger is an attempt to bury it in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Due weight and can also be a violation of the LP policies because Hopfinger is a living person and this title, Hopfinger incident, seems to put the weight of the blame on him. KeptSouth (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point about the name, except for the accusation of bad faith. People, the election is tomorrow. Could we please stop accusing one another and just maintain the damn article as we would any other? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean it as an accusation against anyone in particular -this section was named "Hopfinger incident" quite a long time ago and I didn't direct my remark at any editor in particular. I do think that the effect of the naming was to bury the incident, since the news media never called it "the Hopfinger" incident, but I agree I should have been more careful with my wording. I should have said "can be" instead of "is". As for maintaining the article, my edits were my best attempt to make it more objective and easier to read, and there were no disputes about the edits in the two or three days before the election; so apparently it was treated like any other article by the editors involved.-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Handcuffing of reporter incident needs to be trimmed

The current version of Journalist detained section is about 550 words long, and it needs shortening because while the detention of the journalist is a significant in Miller's campaign, it is still one event, and should not be as long or longer than the section on Miller's career. In addition, the section is now a bit rambling, wordy and discontinuous and it recounts events of minimal relevance to a bio of Miller such as the inconsistent statements of the security guard and the guard's legalistic musings about private vs. public property and the sufficiency of trespass warnings. Maybe this would be important if Miller was involved in a prosecution of the reporter or the security guards were being prosecuted for this incident, but the fact is, no charges were filed, so statements that go into minutiae regarding fault and Alaska law, are irrelevant here. The event does deserve enough linespace to inform the reader of the basic facts because it was a controversy involving a politician and a 1st Amendment issue, it was very widely reported, it is related to another important event in Miller's life, his work record at the borough, and it deals with what may be a continuing battle between Miller and the Alaska press. I will first shorten this section, then I may perhaps add a few brief facts and correct some factual errors per the sources - KeptSouth (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)