Talk:Jim Gilmore

Bias?

This article seems a bit biased to me. There is no criticism stated of Gimore, especially in regards to his reduction of the car tax, despite the fact that he was critized for the deficit and tax burden problems brought on by that move [1][2]. Could someone look into this?

--A bit!?!?? This article could have been lifted straight from the Republican Party's website, and I would not be surprised.

I removed the most flagrant Republican bias and replaced it with a NPOV. As a VA college student, I can tell you that there is NO WAY tuition went down by 20%, so I removed that bit. Otherwise, everything else is basically preserved but with a NPOV.

What does everyone think?

This article seems quite biased to me too.

This is beyond biased. Gilmore's tax cuts did serious, serious damage to VA's economy and infrastructure. Rewrite!

Gilmore cut tuitions by 20% in 1999 and then froze tuition for the remainder of his term. It was a widely documented public policy approved by the Virginia General Assembly over the muted college presidents. Gov. Warner and Gov. Kaine lifted the tuition freeze and tuition has virtually doubled since 2002. Gov. Kaine signed legislation in 2006 that calls for up to 9-10% tuition increases in future years. The current Va. college student disputes that Gilmore cut tuition by 20% in 1999? S/he was probably in junior high school when it occurred and should become more knowledgable before editing history s/he has no knowledge of.

To whom it may concern: Whatever you have been told about these tax cuts causing serious damage to VA's economy is completely false. In fact, it has been recently uncovered that there was no budget deficit in Virginia. At no time did Virginia have a budget deficit from Gilmore's tax cuts. In fact, before Mark Warner ever raised taxes, there was a $600 million surplus in the budget of Virginia. Also, if there was such a budget crisis, how did the budget of Virginia increase from $40 billion to ~$67 billion during the so called "crisis". Just so you do not believe that I'm entirely biased: Mark Warner's administration recently released information that his last budget was off by about $145 million, making his administration seem better than it really was. So the question to ask should be: Was Mark Warner ever telling us the truth, or is he just inept fiscally? Which do you think he would prefer? Maybe his recent pullout of the 2008 contest has something to do with him lying to Virginian's for 4 years? Jim Gilmore has never lied about anything during his administration; he was always honest and forthright. He was successful, popular and the epitome of what conservatism should be. These facts alone could explain why democrats hate him so much and why Republicans praise him.

--Care to add 'He never lied in his life' (which now reads above "...has never lied about anything during his administration")to the article, perhaps with some sources? And last I checked, he wasn't popular enough to bring Mark Earley in on his coattails.

-You obviously do not know very much about the campaign of Mark Earley. Mark Earley never asked for any campaign support from Jim Gilmore. Had Earley asked Gilmore, Gilmore would have definitely helped him in his campaign. Also, you're cute little jab about "he never lied in his life", it's funny. What we all have been referring to is that it was not Gilmore who did anything poor or wreckless with the state budget (as sited below). So while you think we're attempting to portray Governor Gilmore as something he is not, it is actually you who is unwilling to accept the fact that you were lied to by Mark Warner.

--Is that you, Jim?

The external links in this article, and much of the content, appear to have been written by the Draft Gilmore people. 82.35.233.89 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Governour section of the article seems a bit biased against him "as the state went deeper and deeper into depth" but I don't really feel like fixing it. Just putting that out there.

Tuition Increase and Budgets

As another VA college student (and VMI alum), from 1999-2006, I can with authority say that Gilmore's tuition freeze was in effect for a few years, and actually rolled back prices 20%; this was in effect for all public universities in Virginia. I'll even source it, so no one needs to argue about it anymore: ( http://www.epi.elps.vt.edu/BRC/brc299.html ). You can look up the freeze at UVA's legal library via the web as well, if you care to have a primary source. As for deficits, as someone else already noted, there never was one: ( http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15458 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102289.html ). As for supposed damage to infrastructure, please source; Virginia has a very large transportation budget when compared to other states on a per capita basis, and attracts a disproportionately large amount of federal dollars on highway projects, such as the Wilson Bridge, the HRBT, new paving on 81, 64, and 77, etc.

If there ever was anything that violated both the letter and spirit of NPOV, it was wiki users who have a political agenda and see "bias" where no exists.

--Then I suppose those who think this conforms to NPOV wouldn't mind elaborating on why college presidents opposed the tuition freeze?

-Isn't that obvious? If you cut tuitions for students to attend Colleges and Universities, the college presidents get less money to spend per year. You don't think colleges and universities up their tuitions by $1,000's per year to counter inflation, do you? (edit was do to not checking what I had written in the first place. I apologize for the mistake. By the way, get sources yourself. But also remember that you're reading a liberal medium that caters to people like Mark Warner)

--Right, I forgot that college presidents' pay is tied directly with tuition. It couldn't possibly be that College and Universities are competing for students with infrastructure improvements and funding research. I was willing to buy that this article was relatively unbiased until this Horowitzian statement. You didn't help yourself by replacing "for themselves" with "per year," either. The Washington Post archives host of a plethora of articles about Virginia's budget woes after Gilmore's tax cuts. Unfortunately they are all behind an archive subscription wall, but the titles and abstracts are there for all to see. Please find some sources, this is childish.

--Let's get this straight.. you admit you can't source your information, but challenge others to find sources about the so-called budget crisis precipitated by the Gilmore tax cuts? Nearly every news source reported a budget shortfall during the post-Gilmore years that did not exist. The link I listed above is from the Washington Post itself, which is an article about how the biennial projection was wrong, and that Virginia actually ran a surplus of nearly $1 billion dollars before the tax increases enacted by the General Assembly. Yet you allude to articles that aren't publicly available, and are older than the story contained in the link I posted.

--That is correct, I haven't done the homework to find reliable sources, which is why I have not edited the article. You got me. Your WaPo article does mention that those budget projections did not take into account liabilities like Medicaid and Education payments, so there is at the very least a possibility of creative accounting in that $1 billion figure. I notice the snarky comment about college professors has been removed.

I find it pertinent to point something out here. Someone had mentioned that Governors Warner and Kaine have both removed the tuition freeze that was put in place by Governor Gilmore. Have you ever stopped to think about WHY those two lifted these freezes? Seriously. Organizations, especially institutions of higher education, need a budget to operate. The fiscal situation at Virginia colleges had gotten so bad that schools were on the verge of making drastic decisions. They simply needed more money to operate, and this money had to come from tuition increases. That aside, this page needs to be completely rewritten by someone who can do so in an unbiased way. Its blatant, one-sided approach borders on the edge of unethical.

--This page needs some work, for sure, but as far as bias goes I don't think it's much more biased towards Gilmore than Mark Warner's glowing page is towards him.

--This article is inane. Regardless of whether or not particular Washington Post articles about Budget crises have been found, everyone who lived in Virginia at the time remembers that whatever idiot shills for the Republican party want to say, there was indeed a budget crisis provoked by Gilmore's irresponsible tax cuts. Such raging liberals as John Warner had to step in to side with Governor Warner to fix the mess. You can say all you want that it didn't happen, but that's not going to change the fact that Gilmore has been the least popular Governor of Virginia (try looking at some old approval rating charts) in the last three decades. This article needs to be totally rewritten, but barring that tagged as disputed neutrality right now.

Talk page formatting

The discussion on this talk page so far doesn't follow Wikipedia standards for formatting. It would be helpful if participants would review Help:Talk page#Using talk pages. The key points are: (1) sign and date your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~) after it; and (2) use colons to indent responses, by preceding your comment with one colon more than the comment you're answering. Thanks! JamesMLane t c 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Elaborate ploy" == weasel words

I'm no Republican partisan, nor am I a Gilmore fan. However, that quote from Larry Sabato sounds pejorative. That jumped out at me. I don't see how one analyst's characterization of a presidential run as "an elaborate ploy" is really relevant. --Skidoo 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Our guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, applies that term to phrases like "Some people say" and "Research has shown". The guideline goes on to say, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts." In this instance, I've done the former. The statement is attributed (with a citation) to Larry Sabato, whose name is wikilinked, so the reader who's curious can get more information about Sabato and can assess whether he's qualified to offer an opinion. This is about as far from weasel words as you can get.

That a statement is pejorative is no basis for excluding it from an article. Consider this example from the Bill Clinton article: "Some gay rights advocates criticized Clinton for not going far enough and accused him of making his campaign promise simply to get votes and contributions." That sounds pretty pejorative to me (much more so than Sabato's comment). Especially for political figures, we give the reader a fuller picture by quoting or summarizing notable criticisms. In fact, the Gilmore article currently suffers from a shortage of such information.

You also dismissed Sabato's opinion as being not germane. Forming the exploratory committee is a significant act on Gilmore's part, and Sabato is assessing Gilmore's possible motivation for it. It's germane to the reader's understanding of Gilmore's current political ambitions. If Gilmore has publicly disclaimed any interest in the Senate or Governorship, we can certainly include his statement to that effect as well. Regardless of what Gilmore has said, though, I think the Sabato comment should be restored. JamesMLane t c 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sabato's speculation and use of the phrase "elaborate ploy" is irrelevant, combative, and certainly rises to the level of weasel words. I removed it again.--Skidoo 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, your example from the Bill Clinton article is a non sequitur. We're not editing the Bill Clinton article. Maybe that needs to be changed too. As I said, I'm not a partisan. I suspect you are. --Skidoo 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Gilmore's intentions is relevant to Gilmore's bio. Many opinions about politicians are a lot more "combative" than this one -- that doesn't mean they're excluded from Wikipedia. As for weasel words, you've simply reiterated your opinion without addressing the comments I made based on the actual wording of the guideline. We can cure a use of weasel words if we "name a source for the opinion", which is what this passage does. I'm restoring it. JamesMLane t c 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're a blatant partisan. Larry Sabato's use of the phrase "elaborate ploy" is speculative derision, pure and simple, and does not deserve a prominent place in the relevant section. It's simple logic. I'm removing it one more time. If you revert it, well, then whatever dude. You reveal your true colors at the peril of your credibility. --Skidoo 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we go on and put a negative quote from Larry Sabato in every section? I'm sure you could find some more for us. Pardon me while I roll my eyes. --Skidoo 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Our policy says that we report facts about opinions. We do not have a policy of excluding an opinion because some Wikipedia editor disagrees with it, or assails it as "speculative derision" or whatever. Instead, according to WP:NPOV, we try to include significant points of view. This article already has plenty of laudatory stuff about Gilmore, but if you think there's more that should be added, that's consistent with our policies and guidelines, go ahead. I think the article would benefit from having more information about pro- and anti-Gilmore views, concerning both his governorship and his Presidential candidacy.

As for revealing my true colors, I believe that I do so by discussing edits based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as opposed to simply voicing my personal opinions. I assure you that if I were editing this article without regard to WP:NPOV, the article would look very different. JamesMLane t c 21:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well ... for one thing, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prognosticating elections is Larry Sabato's business, not our business. But there's more than just that. This article is a BIOGRAPHY of Jim Gilmore. It is not an article about the election. This quote would be appropriate in an article about the campaign, but not in one about Jim Gilmore. A biography should be factual and report actual events, not speculation. Even sourced speculation is still just speculation. (Full disclosure - I am a Gilmore supporter and during his 1997 campaign, I was active locally with the GOP.) --BigDT 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy you cite says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) I think Sabato is not prognosticating -- he's discussing Gilmore's current state of mind -- but even if he were discussing the prospects for the future, his statement is properly referenced. As for the relevance, it's certainly relevant to Gilmore's bio to discuss his campaign. As a current and controversial event, it might well generate so much material that it threatens to overwhelm this article, in which case this article should have only a summary and the extra detail should be moved to a daughter article. That's already been done with Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008. In Gilmore's case, however, the main bio article has very little about his presidential campaign, so this isn't currently a concern. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement is properly referenced inasmuch as there is little/no question that Sabato actually uttered those words. But that's as far as it goes. Sabato is not a member of the Gilmore campaign. It would mean something if this statement were from Gilmore's campaign manager or someone else in a position to know one way or the other. But Sabato's only connection to Gilmore is that Gilmore attended the school where Sabato teaches - that inferior school. If a newspaper columnist, blogger, TV guy, or anyone else speculates on Gilmore's state of mind, future plans, or golf score, that's not encyclopedic. If he had done an interview with Gilmore, then he would be in a position to give us reliable information ... but as it is, his guess is as good as your guess or my guess. (By the way, as someone who watches Virginia politics, I'd say there's about a 99% chance that Sabato is right. Why does anyone other than Thompson/Giuliani/McCain/Romney stay in it at this point? But whatever their reasons are, that speculation is not encyclopedic.) --BigDT 23:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't watch Virginia politics, so Sabato's guess is certainly better than mine. That Gilmore attended Mr. Jefferson's university is immaterial to Sabato's qualifications. Sabato is a prominent observer of American politics and voting trends. Your position seems to be that, when there's reason to believe that a candidate is saying one thing while believing another, we can't report that suspicion unless it's confirmed by the candidate or one of his campaign spokespeople -- none of whom, of course, would ever admit such a thing. There's no policy to that effect. We wouldn't report it if it came from some blogger in his parents' basement, but the principle of reporting facts about opinions means that we should report it when it comes from a prominent spokesperson, which the blue-linked Larry Sabato certainly is. JamesMLane t c 03:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sabato is making a GUESS. We don't report some guy's guess, even if he has a blue link, especially not in a BLP. --BigDT 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A statement concerning the operation of someone's mind is inherently incapable of definitive, objective proof. Therefore, any such statement could be labeled a "guess". Your position, if adopted, would mean that we could never report any opinions on such a subject. I still await citation to the guideline or policy that says that. Right-wing opinions are apparently permissible, because the Bill Clinton article, in discussing the Marc Rich controversy, refers to "allegations that Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, accepted payments in return for influencing the president's decision-making regarding the pardons" -- clearly implying that Rodham's involvement was one reason for Clinton's decision. Of course, one example doesn't prove anything. If the refusal to report what you call a guess is a policy, not just a personal preference, then we should apply it to edit the Clinton article, not repeat the mistake here. Nevertheless, I don't think it is (or should be) a policy. Critics of Clinton are entitled to charge that he pardoned Rich for other than his stated reasons. Critics of Gilmore are entitled to charge that he's running for President for other than his stated reasons. (The latter criticism is actually much less harsh.) There's no reason that politicians' bios should be scrubbed of all such references. JamesMLane t c 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(De-intenting) The BBC reporting the fact that an allegation exists is not exactly the same thing as Larry Sabato making a SWAG. If you are looking for a policy that says, "articles should not report Larry Sabato's guesses", you will probably be disappointed. We do have a policy that we are not a crystal ball and we do have a policy that we use reliable sources, particularly about living people. Sabato is making a guess - that guess is not a reliable source and it's not fit for an encyclopedia article. --BigDT 05:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy about reliable sources applies to statements of fact. It's not implicated here, where there's no dispute that Sabato actually made the statement. The same is true about crystal-ball-gazing -- we don't base our content decisions on what we think is likely to happen, and our articles don't adopt anyone's assertions about what's likely to happen, but that's different from reporting a current attributed opinion about what's likely to happen. Wikipedia reports quite a few opinions that it would be improper for us to adopt. JamesMLane t c 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cullen was after Gilmore as Attorney General

Gilmore dropped his Attorney General position and Richard Cullen replaced him...so the box at the bottom is wrong

Cleaning up

I'll be working through this article to clean it up--it looks like both sides of the spectrum have compiled a mess in here. Feel free to comment about any of the changes, and I'll be happy to take a look. --Zz414 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not hearing any complaints, except for a couple of anonymous users, I think the article is much better than it was, both in terms of anti-POV and pro-POV, than it was a week ago. If anyone has any issues, I'm more than happy to discuss them here. In particular, the lack of cited material (especially Gilmore's achievements in office) has been a problem, and the article now neutralizes most of those concerns (which admittedly makes it a little bare, but without citations, that material just can't stay). --Zz414 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Governor of Virginia

The new version of Gilmore's term as Governor is factual with the appropriate citations. The article offers no bias either way on the positives or negatives of Gilmroe's tenure. --Gilmore4Pres-, 20 February 2007

It actually tilted heavily in Gilmore's favor. I kept the cited source for education test scores, but you can't just whitewash the controversies of the car tax, which were a significant component of both Gilmore's term and Warner's election bid. --Zz414

National Security

The national security section is completely factual without any bias with the appropriate citations. --Gilmore4Pres 20 February 2007

Criticism section should be added

Is it not fair to state that AT THE VERY LEAST, some criticism of the car tax relief should be introduced. If not only the FACT that the actual cost was over $500 million more than projected? This not opinion, it is documented truth.