Talk:Dino Rossi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

BIAW as Rossi's largest contributor[edit]

Since there seems to be a mini-edit war going on here.. Perhaps instead of adding that Rossi's biggest contributor is BIAW, perhaps it should be noted why this bit of information is more than just trivia? There was a lawsuit filed against Rossi and BIAW in regards to violation of campaign finance laws, so perhaps that should be mentioned, not just that BIAW was his biggest contributor... --Bobblehead (rants) 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The suit was filed against BIAW, not against Rossi. And so far no cite shows BIAW as "his biggest contributor." In fact, BIAW was not even the biggest independent spender in the election. And so far, BIAW has not been found guilty of anything. Collect (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this article, BIAW was Rossi's biggest "backer" and at the time the story was printed (October 17) had spent the most of any interest group. I would also suggest you take a gander at the PDC's website and the last filing for "It's time for a change" (BIAW's PAC this year) Note that as of 10/30 they had spent $6.4 million against Gregoire and $478k in support of Rossi. Add in another $233k BIAW reported directly[1] and that's $7.1 million BIAW spent helping Rossi. Evergreen Progress was the biggest independent group opposing Rossi and they spent $4.5 million.[2] So, what's that about them not being the biggest independent spender in the election? --Bobblehead (rants) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Problem is the lumping of the sums. Did you note the total amount spent for Gregoire and against Rossi by labor unions by any chance? Besides "Evergreen Progress" which last figures showed spent over $6.1 million on the campaign, and not counting any other union expenditures. Comparable or more. Collect (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If Evergreen spent over $6.1 million on the Governor's campaign, it's not in the PDC, so I'd be interested to see your sources for that. They only have Evergreen spending $4.5 million on the Governor's campaign.[3] As far as your lumping together, you can't really group all "labor unions" into a single group and compare them to a single organization like BIAW... While labor unions do tend to be predominantly Democratic, they are still different organizations, it would be the equivalent of grouping all Builders and Realtor groups into a big lump and saying they represent a single group. Between Gregoire and Rossi there was $19.3 million spent by independent groups either opposing or supporting them. $7.1 million of that came from ChangePAC, Walking for Washington (BIAW's other PAC), or BIAW directly, $4.9 million came from the Republican Governor's Association, and $4.5 million came from Evergreen Progress. That only leaves $3 million total independent expenditures spent on the campaigns from groups other than BIAW, RGA, or Evergreen. That doesn't leave enough money for groups other than BIAW to be the biggest independent spender. --Bobblehead (rants) 08:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Think I found the source for your $6.1 million on Evergreen Progress.[4] Evergreen Progress did raise and spend $6.3 million in the 2008 election year, but only $4.5 million of it were spent on the Governor's campaign. No idea what happened to the other $1.8 million. But then, It's Time for a Change raised and spent $7.3 million, but only $6.9 million of it went to the governor's campaign, so that's .4 million missing. Maybe it's overhead costs? --Bobblehead (rants) 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Only if you find Evergreen and the other union spending to be independent of each other -- which requires the faith of the White Queen <g>. I note you luimp together al the builder monies into one pot despite the fact that they had several separate pots. Meanwhile, BIAW has not been deemed to have done anything wrong, which makes the lawsuit a bit problematic. Collect (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Not anymore than I'm grouping by saying "Evergreen Progress". 90% of ChangePACs funding came directly from BIAW, with all but a few percent of the remainder coming from BIAWs child organizations. Almost half of Evergreen Politics funding came from the Democratic Governor's association with most of the rest coming from Unions. If I were to group the Rossi supporters similarly to how the Gregoire supporters are grouped under Evergreen Progress, then you'd have a single anti-Gregoire group contributing $12 million. That being said, even if you take the other organizations out of ChangePAC, you have BIAW by itself contributing $6.5 million to anit-Gregoire/pro-Rossi organizations. That by itself is almost more than all of the pro-Gregoire/anti-Rossi independent groups spent during the campaign. Seriously, in total $392,115.96 was spent by independent groups in support of Gregoire and $6,116,472.72 was spent opposing Rossi, that's $6.5 million spent by all unions, liberal and Democratic groups spent by the pro-Gregoire/anti-Rossi campaigns. If you adjust the amount BIAW gave to ChangePAC for the amount of "overhead" charges in proportion to their contributions to ChangePAC and add in BIAWs direct independent expenditures, you get BIAW spending $6.2 million campaigning against Gregoire/for Rossi. Do the same for the Democratic Governor's Association's contributions and assume that all of the rest of the money spent opposing Rossi and supporting Gregoire was from the unions and you get Union groups contributing $4.5 million in total. That is still less than BIAW spent on its own.... --Bobblehead (rants) 16:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Check out how unions account for electoral campaign expenditures -- they are not subject to the regular reporting systems for "communications to union families" and the like. Actual expenditures were likely over $10 million from unions (over $5 million to Evergreen and listed unions). And still NO case against Rossi. In point of fact, it is more than a little irrelevant. Collect (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

parenthetical claims or irrelevant claims, WP:WTA and WP:BLP still apply[edit]

Occupation of his grand-dad is parenthetical at best. Being one of 35 incorporators of a bank is irrelevant, unless you have a cite which says he was the one who made decisions. Instead you point out that he had nothing to do with the bank! So why make a big deal of it in the BLP? Etc. Also there is blatantly improper wording which was restored - such as " yet one more victim of a recession which has forced financial losses on so many." "will never again use earmarks " which is odd since he has never been a US Senator in the first place, "GOP victories in state-wide elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia as well as widespread anti-incumbency sentiment have led to speculation that Rossi will challenge incumbent Patty Murray for the United States Senate" hits WP:CRUSTAL especially since it is not directly related to his biography at all. Also stuff like "And yet" and "However" are covered in WP:WTA. In short - my revision was proper in all respects, and I ask that it be reverted back. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

State subsidized the AquaSox[edit]

In regards to:

That source is Publicola, a news site ran by award-winning journalists. They in turn referenced:

Which says:

Mike Gunn, director of facilities and planning for the district, said the Everett AquaSox The Everett AquaSox are a minor league baseball team in Everett, Washington, USA. They are a Class A team in the Northwest League. Originally created as the Everett Giants in 1984, the team switched affiliation from the San Francisco Giants to the Seattle Mariners in 1995 when the minor-league baseball team, which uses the stadium, wanted the money.

The request was submitted by Rep. Mike Sells, D-Everett, as part a larger lobbying effort for minor-league baseball teams that secured more than $13 million to improve stadiums across the state.

The district knew about the AquaSox request, Gunn said, but "for the public school function -- that's our prime mission -- we would not have needed this."

So yes it was for the AquaSox -- the school district SAID so. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only is "publicola" likely not RS (it is self-described as a "blog" with no central fact-checking), it does not even make the connection implicit in the claim (SYNTH). Collect (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Go back and read the article again. Comprehension is handy. Also, a news site ran by multiple-award winning journalists that is recommended by a variety of mainstream newspapers and RS ***Is*** a RS itself. I saw your chat on jmedmonds (spelling) page and he didn't disagree. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope. It has no fact-checking, and is not considered by WP standards as anything other than a blog. Blogs by well-known people are still blogs. And IIRC, you had once claimed the site was "award winning" - it isn't. And his comment was "Regardless, the phrasing is terrible." which does not sound like anything approaching an endorsement of your position at all. Have you read WP:V and seen what is, and is not, officially a "reliable source"? Collect (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you basing it on that it has no fact checking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talkcontribs) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Because the blog posts are under no one's editorial control to have any facts checked. Read them and you will find they are basically opinion pieces. And opinion pieces are not RS per WP policy other than as to the opinion of the author. Period. Collect (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
And it reads like scandal mongering to prove a point. This is a BLP and although it might be tempting to discredit a politician you disagree with, you should consider if it is given too much weight. It appears to be blatant POV pushing.Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
And the "blog" is a little vague (one editor pointed out that it might be wrong in an edit summary) and although some of those guys might have been good at one time, it is certainly a blog now which means it accuracey should be questioned.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mnicolosi, 15 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Can you change links to from our old link style to our new style,

Thanks much! Michelle

Mnicolosi (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done - thanks - Alison 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wiser77, 3 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Paragraph 1 identifies governor Gregoire as an "emocrat" rather than a democrat.

Wiser77 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mlslider, 07 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Can you change the information that says Rossi lost the 2010 election by a margin of 100,000 votes? It was 118. Thank you!


Not done: It says "over 100,000 votes." Rounding to 100,000 is much clearer and simpler than saying "over 118,000 votes" (the actual difference was 118,766). Except in cases where the vote is very close, it's rare to be so precise as you're asking. If you have some specific reason why you think the information neds to be more precise explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)