Talk:John Kasich

Initial comment

I know, I've heard the rumors about Kasich, too, so I reluctantly left in the gay-baiting stuff without researching it. It's a pretty incendiary thing to have in here without sourcing, and sourcing shouldn't be that hard to find, I'd think.--Inonit 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Kasich not gay

The only article available (so far as I can find) on Lexis-Nexis is this: 'OUTING' BECOMES ELECTION STRATEGY October 21, 1996 Monday, FINAL / ALL METRO; Pg. 1B By AFI-ODELIA E. SCRUGGS; PLAIN DEALER REPORTER I can't post it here because it is not public domain. However, the article basically says Cynthia Ruccia alleged Kasich was gay so that he would be hurt in the election. Money quote: "His constituency is known to be hostile to gay rights. Cuthbertson admits that allegations of homosexuality could hurt Kasich's re-election chances. Ruccia knows it; that's why she's raising the issue." Does one story from a state newspaper without any supporting evidence deserve inclusion? Rkevins82 16:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, "Kasich not gay" isn't how I would put it; I'd say there's little evidence either way. But in any case, I'd say the question is not "is Kasich gay" but "were/are the Kasich-is-gay rumors significant in the context of his career." Everybody knew about them, and it certainly may be true that they influenced Dole heavily. And the gay rumors --> sudden marriage --> run for Presidency sequence, in quick succession, raises the question of whether Kasich thought the rumors were significant. I dunno. I left it in for now.--Inonit 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Little evidence? I would say being married for eight years and denying being gay, in the face of no convincing evidence of his homosexuality, is fairly strong. Do we have any evidence that Dole was influenced by the rumor? The suggestion that "gay rumors --> sudden marriage -->run for Presidency sequence, in quick succession" is a little out of touch. Here is a timeline:

• 1989 - Kasich starts dating Karen Waldbillig
• March 29, 1996 - approximately two dozen House freshmen recommended Dole choose Kasich
• August 10, 1996 - Dole picks Kemp for VP
• October 21, 1996 - gay rumor story (only one on Lexis-Nexis)
• March 22, 1997 - Kasich marries Waldbillig
• February 15, 1999 - Kasich form presidential exploratory committee

So what's up in the air? The couple was discreet, but they were seen together prior to marrying. Rkevins82 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a side issue, but ...

1. being married is hardly conclusive evidence (Rock Hudson was married), let alone "denying" being gay,
2. these rumors about GOP congressmen have a reasonably good record of being true (Mark Foley, David Dreier, Randy Cunningham).

Sounds like you know more than me about the relationship with Waldbillig. Anyway, I stick with "a little bit of evidence each way."

The main point is: it may well be that Kasich is not gay. However, the rumors were well-known, well prior to Ms. Scruggs' article. And they may well have affected things like Dole's decision -- I would have been shocked if they did not. I don't think they affected Kasich much with the public as I don't think the rumors were well-known there (as your search reveals, the media didn't do much with them). But with insiders, my view would be that they affected him, particularly as a Republican. That said, I weakened the claims the original editor made.--Inonit 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

More can be drawn from 'IN HIS POLITICS AND IN HIS HEART, KASICH IS NEVER FAR FROM HOME by Joe Hallet, June 6, 1999. Rkevins82 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also see, KASICH AT THE CROSSROADS; WILL A REPULICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM WESTERVILLE BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT? by Christopher Evans, June 7, 1998. Rkevins82 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Kasich is now on some VP shortlists for 2008, what's the latest on this? I heard that he is no longer married. Also, does anyone know if his marriage in 1996 (at the age of 44) was his first? Does he have any children?75.69.32.133 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Faveuncle

Controversy Section

Please debate the controversy section before deleting it because you like Kasich. Many people have a controversy section, including Bill O'Rielly, whose Controversy article is longer than the main page. I did not make an attempt to find all the relevant controversies, I can if you wish. Downthedoor 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The item about Robertson is improperly sourced. There is only one source among all those listed that claims that Kasich said that Robertson was guilty of nothing but bad timing and that source is a blog and as such isn't considered an acceptanble source by Wikipedia. See WP:RS. The item about Kasich postulating on divorces is non notable and the source resolves to a Lexis Nexis login page anyway. I am neither a fan of Kasich or a foe, but this section is improperly sourced and hardly worthy of the term controversy. I am removing the sections as per WP:Notability, WP:RS and WP:BLP because reliable sources do not assert the claims.Caper13 08:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The item about Robertson came from a blog of a professional writer in the field, but I will pull the transcripts for you. I am sorry you do not have a subscription to Lexus-Nexus, but there are ADMINS you do. Lexis-Nexis is a valid source for transcripts. Non-notable? Typical man... I received an email the next day from N.O.W., after watching him say it the night before. I can see that you are a defender of conservative men, with all the Rush Limbaugh defending you do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Downthedoor (talk • contribs)

I don't know why you are attacking me. If you have some sort of agenda I suggest you take it elsewhere. I edit a variety of articles and remove invalid items I see regardless of the politics involved but I have nothing to prove in either case. Caper13 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not notable, but the *claim* that he might be gay something that is? (And I am not saying to remove it, I would just think it would be the first thing to go when you are cleaning up your golden boys page).

And per the Notability guidelines, there is NOTHING in the section about removing facts outright. Please review the guidelines again before vandalizing the page. And per the RS guidelines "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

This is not something that needs to be pulled while we debate it. I appreciate the work you do, but please make sure you are correct before you go pulling items that you do not like out of articles.

And why did it sit for so long untouched if it was not in line with policy? It was only after the most recent edit did you apply your own rules. I will repost it in 12 hours unless convinced otherwise. Downthedoor 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article claiming he is gay, though if it did without airtight proof it would violate WP:BLP and I would remove it. If I missed it, please point it out to me so I can review it.

That blog is not by a well known professional writing in a field of expertise. As such it is not usable as a source.

This recent section was added a couple of weeks ago from what I can see. That isnt that long in an article that doesnt get a lot of traffic. As to why no one else noticed it , one person apparently did, but even so it doesnt matter if it violates policy. As far as notability goes, if my purpose was in trying to make Kascich look good, I would leave all this in there. It is so weak that it makes him look good in comparison. But the purpose here is to write a decent article.Caper13 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the comment about some celebrity break ups is basically "so what". It is a well known fact that some marriages break up because one partner does much better than the other, especially in Hollywood and it more commonly happens when the formerly more successful one is eclipsed by the formerly less successful one. Asking the question isnt notable (or even interesting IMHO). Its not like he was saying the women shouldnt have gone out and been successful, and there is no source asserting that is what he was implying. It is a fairly banal question on a fairly boring subject. Hardly worthy of note for any purpose. Caper13 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the criticisms aren't valid. Saying that someone's medical occurs because of divine retribution for political moves is definitely controversial. The second part I think is more banal, I agree, so maybe that part should be taken out. OneWorld22 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are questioning one of the three sorces. From your blog, she is a "Writer and journalist, author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood (1989) and Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality (1999). Columnist for Reason (monthly) and The Boston Globe (weekly)." She qualifies for a valid sorce as both a journalist AND as a author published by a third party. If you have questions, google her, visit her home page. You can also vist her wikipedia article that classifies her as a AUTHOR. If you have any questions regarding her author published by a third party status, please leave it below, do not remove the item from the page because you disagree with it.

the circumstances in which a blog is an acceptable source are limited and exceptional. This is not one of them and does not meet the policy. Just because this person has had items published by a couple of third parties, does not then make her personal blog (which is considered WP:OR an acceptable source. Her items published and subject to the editorial control of reputable third parties could be, but not a simple blog. See WP:RS. If you can't come up with a reputable third party source to cite the item in question, then that is also an indication of its lack of notability, because if the information on the person's blog is really worth reporting, someone else would have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. So, if no one else saw fit to publish this story, it is an indication it is either not true, not notable, or something in between. (her interpreation of semi true events may be skewed away from what most people consider the truth. Caper13 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think one pertinent section from WP:BLP is this, "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." Rkevins82 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bigoted Racist Ignorant Sexist, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/28/us-ohio-governor-diversity-idUSTRE70R6XV20110128

Ohio Governor John Kasich defended himself on Friday against criticism from black Ohio lawmakers that he hadn't named any racial minorities to his cabinet, saying two prospects he had asked had refused. Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said the new Republican administration approached two African-Americans for two positions, but they "passed on the opportunity."

"The over-arching philosophy of the administration is that Ohio needs the best and brightest and also needs people who share the governor's vision for cutting taxes to make Ohio more economically competitive," said Nichols. He added that the office will continue to try to "make the cabinet as diverse as possible."

In a statement Thursday, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus criticized Republicans in both the Kasich administration and the state's legislature for failing to place minorities in key positions. "It is feeling more like 1811 and not 2011 in the state of Ohio," said Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland), in a statement. She said that other Republican administrations in recent Ohio history had diverse cabinets.

Perhaps member of KKK too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Budget Chairman section

The wikipedia article reads, "Later that year, the Penny-Kasich Plan, which would have cut federal spending by $90 billion, failed by only six votes.[6]" The citation goes to an article in Time magazine which state more accurately, "[Penny] and Ohio Republican John Kasich are sponsoring a proposal for $103 billion in further cuts over five years." Is there any compelling reason not to change the text of the wikipedia article to, "Later that year, the Penny-Kasich Plan, which would have cut federal spending by $103 billion over five years, failed by only six votes.[6]"? --75.180.45.107 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

okTastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

New picture?

The man is running for Governor of Ohio, can't we have a better picture of him? The black and white just is not cutting it. :)

21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --VWBot (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has been reverted by a bot to this version to remove User:CAFESDO's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. VWBot (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve article

I have some suggestions for improving the article. Should we try and move some of the things from “Gubernatorial positions” to “Actions”, especially considering that most things in “positions” have already happened?

I would suggest moving “John Kasich, was sworn in at midnight on January 10, 2011 in a private ceremony at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus. It was followed by a ceremonial inauguration at the Ohio Theatre at noon on the same day.[5]” from “actions” to the last line of “gubernatorial campaign” as being sworn in doesn’t, in my mind, denote significant action or change undertaken by the governor. I also think that it would make sense to change “Post congressional political involvement” to simply “Post Congress”, and then include two smaller sections: “Political involvement” and “Private sector”.

It seems to me some things in this article either need to be moved to a controversy or criticism section, since they seem both out of place and WP:UNDUE. This includes “Violation of campaign finance allegations”, “Significant Salary Increases for His Top Staff”, his comment in front of the EPA, the traffic violation controversy, not moving into the governors mansion, and the lack of diversity in his cabinet. I know good Wikipedia articles don’t have controversy or criticism sections, but considering that an overwhelming majority of the "Governor of Ohio" section is negative coverage or criticism, we need to put these topics into a separate section until more information is added to balance out the negative press.

I'm going to let this comment sit for a day or two and if no objections are raised I'll make the changes I proposed. Afterward I'll try and do some research to find more information in order to expand the article.

I also found a reference that need to be tagged as a dead link, but I don’t have permission to change it myself. Reference 38 = http://www.thenews-messenger.com/Story_not_found Bowmerang (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagged until a better one can be found.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CREW list

I don't see any secondary sources to show that this list of the worst governors is notable. It seems to me like one of those partisan groups that attacks a certain party for political reasons, but that few take seriously. If there are some notable ethical issues that have been reported on in some reliable sources, then maybe those should be in the article, but the CREW stuff itself should not. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The CREW list is apparently getting lots of coverage all over the country. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] That equates with notability on wikipedia. And the list is not partisan, there are some Dems on it.[7]. I have been saying for years, before you accuse a statement of being unsourced, please google it. Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Those sources don't establish the notability of this list as it relates to Kasich. Almost every special interest group puts out some list or rating. Even out of the sources you listed, the only major national source (an NPR blog) pointed out the skew towards naming Republicans. There was some Ohio blog that briefly mentioned Kasich's inclusion, while also pointing out the apparent bias. That's not good enough in my opinion for it to be in the article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are changing your argument. You challenged the CREW list's notability. I sourced it is being reported in mainstream media all over the country. The list is notable. Kasich's name is on the list, along with 17 others (not my governor, I don't have a horse in this race). His presence on an exclusive list like that is notable. Trackinfo (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue in deciding whether it belongs in the article is its notability as it relates to this article. It doesn't sound so exclusive if a fourth of the governors are on it every year. I looked at the pages of a few other governors and it looks like there's been some dispute about this issue on some of them too. We should probably just wait to hear what others have to say about it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)