Talk:Lieutenant Governor of Alaska

Alaska Mid‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lieutenant governor of Georgia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of lieutenant governors of Alaska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813014303/http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=5000 to http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=5000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 14 LtGs as of December 2018[edit]

This list needs to be split into two parts. For those who were only 'secretary of state' & for those who were lieutenant governor. The split would be on August 25, 1970. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, we simply remove the numbering entirely (see New York's ltgs), including from the infoboxes from the bios. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The office changed names. That's it. It's still the same office. I don't see that sufficient as requiring a second list, at all. What matters is how does the state number them. --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept removing the numberings here & at the bios. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's extreme. The first secretary of state can also be considered the first lieutenant governor. (But, the fourth lieutenant governor cannot be considered the fourth secretary of state) A pure name change does not change the position. But, I think this can all wait until we see what the state says about the incoming Lt Gov. --Golbez (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the notes, so that it mentions the establishment of the title Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As seen on page 4, three academic books were published on the constitution between 1975 and 1997. Per WP:INDEPENDENT, that subset of sources should be what you consult first, not a primary source as Golbez appears to imply (and Harrison is online courtesy of the Legislature). I'm sure at least one of them contained some commentary to the effect that this amendment renamed a job title and nothing else. As I'm at a library right now, I'll try to find the time to dig those up and look them over. As an aside, a recent posting from a blog I follow claimed 17 lite guvs, which would have included Joe Schmidt. That's a tricky one, since both Schmidt and Val Davidson were quite possibly only acting lite guvs for a brief period. It appears that we really can't count on corporate media these days to perform any fact checking. When Sarah Palin invited the media to her home for that press conference where she announced her impending resignation, she stated that Craig Campbell would be replacing Sean Parnell as lite guv. The media chose to take her at her word and run with it, ignoring any hint of the fact that she chose Schmidt as the replacement several months prior and the legislature confirmed that choice in accordance with state statute. Their dereliction of duty WRT fact checking is the reason why it has been difficult to straighten that bit out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that independent sources are generally what we want, an entity is allowed to define itself, and if the state says there have been [x] lieutenant governors, and can show their work, then we should go with that. Just like how Alabama officially doesn't number repeat governors, but the United States does number repeat presidents, and Connecticut starts its numbering with the colonial charter. (The 'showing work' is important. Georgia says there have been 82 governors, and I've found no way to get to that number, so we don't use it. Haven't gotten around to emailing the state.) And I wasn't indicating that we take the state's word for it over all other sources, I was saying we should see if they have any statement at all - this isn't exactly a mission critical article that requires up-to-the-minute accuracy. But, from what I can tell, they have not made an official statement. (And in retrospect, as we see with Iowa, it's typically more than a single statement we need)

As for Schmidt, according to [1] he "resigned from the second-in-line position on July 6, 2009". This document is from the Palin government, but it jives with other statements to the committee [2]. So we'd need some strong countersourcing to include Schmidt. --Golbez (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until this is resolved. I've removed the numberings from this article & on the corresponding bio articles' infoboxes, I've hidden them. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Jack coghill cropped.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's party[edit]

Since I've largely finished my governor work, I'm tidying up some Lt Gov articles. I've meticulously sourced all governor's parties to numerous sources based on what they ran as in the election, and who nominated them. But Craig Campbell is unusual. He never ran for, or won, a partisan office before being named lieutenant governor. Usually, when a Lt. Gov succeeds a Gov, they were elected through a party, so it's easy to say they are still this party. But Campbell never went through that.

I know he personally identifies as a Republican, and ran for the nomination in 2010. But for his partial term, he was as close to "non-partisan" as I can think for a partisan office. And while he ran and held elected office before, it appears to have always been a non-partisan office.

I'm stuck at how, if at all, to handle this. Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]