Talk:Ann Richards

hi i am doing abook project over you can you help me.thanks

---

very well written and fair article. A+ -- mccommas

---

maybe the article should mention ann richards appeared on an episode of king of the hill

Minor changes from first-time editor

Just a brief note to say that I made some minor (marked them as such) changes to the introduction based on what I saw in the biographical style guide and switched some repetitious wording ("Ann Richards, Ann Richards, Ann Richards, etc.") for what I think is better flow. Thanks! Douglasmtaylor 00:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination speech not one of the best

The fact that a speech is included on AmericanRhetoric.com doesn't make it one of the best of the twentieth century. American Rhetoric has zillions of speeches archived. It just means that for some reason, it's worth keeping. Richards' nomination speech in 1988 was good, but it wasn't one of the best of the twentieth century. That's just silly. DoyleSrader 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism does not constitute bias

I believe it deserves mention that there were some criticisms of Ann Richards from several sources. I do not believe that stating this constitutes bias. If anyone wishes to rewrite the "Criticism" section they may do so, but I think some mention of her use of the death penalty does belong there. Piercetp 11:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the biographies of every U.S. state governor include a subsection on the death penalties administered under their tenure? Or are we fascinated with the romance of the issue in the state of Texas these days? I think the assertion "some mention of her use of the death penalty does belong there" deserves some scrutiny.

Death

I just heard on the CBS Radio Network around 23:00 EST that Richards has died from cancer of the esophagus.

Confirmed. AP story here Billbrock 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Smoker?

Was she a smoker? Hence the esophageal cancer? Can't find any information on her smoking history...Joe 06:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mild POV issues in this generally well-written article

I felt there was some slight pro-concealed-carry bias in the article, and tweaked a couple words. On the other side of the political spectrum, I feel some slight anti-death-penalty bias remains in the "Criticisms" section. Not looking to whitewash these criticisms, just to see them presented fully & fairly, & w/ appropriate emphasis. Will yield floor to Texans. Billbrock 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag under death penalty. That is 100% accurate and I don't see any bias. I have no idea why the tag was placed. What was the objection? I lived in Texas during her governorship and I heard the quote myself. It was no secret that Ann Richards opposed the death penalty. It is also no secret that she pledged to uphold state law. She did exactly that. User:wjbean

Well, obviously you're gonna find some bias in the section about criticism... I added, by the way, a comment on who appoints the members of the board of paroles and pardons, since this seems relevant to the governor's possibility of commuting sentences. A sourcefor the members being appointed by the governor can be found in the Annual Report of the Board of Texas Paroles and Pardons of 2005. User:Duribald

I agree.

I can't recall many public critiques of her use of capital punishment-at least, in contrast to her successor-but I'm sure they exist.

On the other hand, I do believe she was frequently and extensively criticized for her position with respect to gun control, IIRC. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indent citations

In other articles, it has been noted that citations to webpages should be expanded as footnotes that include the author/group, title, and date of a reference, so in case the webpage expires in a few months, the reference can still be hunted by title or author, perhaps found on other webpages or in print journals. The problem caused by expanding most citations to have author/title/date is that the citations can become huge within a sentence and clutter the text of the article, unless formatted to avoid the "mass-of-text" appearance. I have found that ref-tag footnotes can be indented (with restrictions), similar to a block-structured programming language, to improve readability of all the added details, without totally obscuring the original sentence with a "mass of text" about the cited author/webpage/publication. The following is an example of an indented ref-tag (where "ref-tag" will be "ref" in the actual citation):

<ref-tag>

John Authore, "Title of Topic Story," MyOrganization, May 10, 2006,

webpage: [http: //www.sourcewebsite.org XXX-Story].

</ref>

The main restriction is to never split a bracketed link "[xx yy]" across 2 lines using a carriage-return newline (or the link could appear as unlinked text); however, each separate text line (after carriage-return) can be indented (such as by 5 spaces), similar to a computer programming language where each line has a carriage-return. Also, the lead ref-tag cannot be separated by a blank line from the prior sentence phrase, or the Wiki-formatted line will split. There is no reason to impose a standard indentation: it could vary, throughout an article, such as indenting the author name by 5 spaces, or 7, with no strict limit. Indented ref-tags can make it bearable to have a dozen footnotes in a paragraph without appearing, internally, as a complex mass of text. -Wikid77 05:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Should mention Miriam A. Ferguson

The article should mention Miriam A. Ferguson and explain why Richards is the first woman governor "in her own right." I don't want to change the page without some consensus because a lot of readers will be here due to her death. Lamont A Cranston 14:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Did she act on King of the Hill?

Anybody know if she did her own voice when she appeared on King of the Hill? I assume she did, but the King of the Hill article doesn't say, and I don't know where to find this information. Lamont A Cranston 14:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she did. Her name's in the credits at the end of the episode. Fearfulsymmetry 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that possible? She died in 1995, and the episode premiered in 2001. You're telling me she provided a guest voice six years after she died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.54.83 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes

Ann Richards was an amazing orator with an ascerbic wit and the ability to quip amazing one-liners that truly cut to the core of the issue at debate... I believe that including a list of her memorable quotes would be a great addition to the page. My suggestions include:

• Regarding the wealthy, then-Vice President George H. W. Bush, "Poor George, he can't help it...He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
• Regarding her opponent in the 1994 Texas Gubernatorial Race, George W. Bush: "George Bush was born on third base - woke up and thought he hit a triple."
• Regarding her possibility of running for President, and lack of funds to do so: "I don't want to end up living in a trailer parked in my daughter's driveway in Austin."

(Source: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/09/14/smith_on_richards/index.html ) Cheez0r 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gay Pride Parade

Ann marched in a Gay Pride Parade in or around 1998, in Austin, Texas. This would seem to me to be a pretty important item of her history and should be included IMO. Cheez0r 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

16-September-2006: I realize there are a lot of major events left out of the article. Since Ann Richards was popular in Hollywood, there should be many sources of extra details. Feel free to add much more: Wikipedia articles can easily run 10 pages or more, since the "WP:NOT paper" decision (Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no size restriction based on book sizes). However, try to cite a news article (can be webpage news) for each event, and try to use long-term sources, such as long-running Hollywood magazines or websites that leave articles online for years. I could easily expect an article of 10 pages or more, since Ann Richards was the first woman Governor of Texas in 50 years, and she promoted film production in Texas, was emcee of Hall of Fame, supported Austin City Limits & the South by Southwest Festival (SXSW), was a possible target of Karl Rove (in the film Bush's Brain), spoke about Halliburton's U.S. Army no-bid, sole-source contracts, co-authored 2 books, etc., etc. -70.249.35.103 08:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lottery proceeds

The article had stated that in 1997, "all lottery net revenue was redirected to the state's Foundation School Fund" (had been General Revenue); however, as of April 2006, some of the lottery proceeds still go to the Texas General Revenue Fund:

"The State of Texas will have $71.9 billion in General Revenue-Related funds to finance appropriations in the 2006-07 biennium. This revenue will come from three sources: tax collections; non-tax receipts such as fees, lottery proceeds, and interest; and the 2004-05 biennium ending balance." [webpage with 2005 lottery: Texas "2006-07 Revenue Estimate" (April 2006)]

There is no evidence that the lottery proceeds were ever dedicated totally to education funding, and for that reason, I have reworded the Ann Richards article at the Lottery section. [amended now] -70.249.35.103 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Flowers? The Capitol?

What do these have to do with Richards? Certainly they are moving pictures, but this is not a memorial page to her. I suggest not adding them again--they have absolutely nothing to do with Richards herself. And at the same time, shouldn't the memorial be in a different section, to be removed later? She's dead, the funeral is over, and we all need to get on with life. Her funeral should not be the first thing a visitor unfamiliar with Ann Richards should see when he visits this page. Again PLEASE DO NOT ADD THE PICTURES AGAIN UNTIL THIS IS DISCUSSED AND REMOVED!!! [Pahoran513 20:22 17 September 2006]

Since the death of Ann Richards, this article has been tagged as a current event ("{current}"), so details of her death and memorial service are the most recent, as a current event, and have been placed near the top of the article. As for the comment, "the funeral is over," that is totally incorrect: the public service will be on September 18 at noon, and the private burial is planned for later. Beginning four days ago, people placed yellow roses in the Capitol Rotunda, in memory of Ann Richards. So, those pictures are very much related to the article and part of the current event. Once the article is no longer a current event, then the memorial-service section could be moved further down inside the article. I think the text about the memorial explains that the funeral is not over yet. -70.249.35.103 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I did not understand that the memorial services were not completely over yet--all I saw was Clinton on TV with crying children and adults. I'm sorry. But I still don't believe that the pictures belong--not only are they not referenced in the memorial section, but don't belong in this article. Maybe if a seperate article about the memorial events were created they could go there, but I found them to be a distraction from the article itself. So could we compromise on this? I won't make a stink about the memorial section still being so prominent (I'm not entirely comfortable with that yet) if you (70.249.35.103) won't add the pictures again. Agreed? Pahoran513 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You all gotta be kidding! To claim even a pretense of NPOV in this Paean-To-Ann Richards-Page is mind-boggling. Less than one week before her gubernatorial election, thus long after her self-declared years of sobriety as well as her pompously self-aggrandizing and continual 'proud to be sober' campaign statements and speeches during 1996, I SAW HER SO DRUNK SHE LITERALLY FELL ON HER FACE. She vowed in her 1st gubernatorial campaign to eliminate at least one of the numerous Austin strip clubs. Why eliminating an Austin strip club was a gubernatorial prerogative, let alone a gubernatorial responsibility, she declined to publicly elucidate. Perhaps it was because she knew that in years prior a particular strip club had been scheduled to be destroyed through the state excercise of eminent domain, along with many other businesses along the right-of-way, in re the reconstruction of a state highway running through southern Austin. She certainly took credit publicly for the closure and the actual demolition, appearing on at least one local news program 'swinging the first hammer' upon the initiation of the demolition of that strip club after her election. How do I know all this? Because I worked for more than 11 years at one of those strip clubs running a valet parking concession. Sometime within the last few days before her electoral victory over C. W. Williams, she visited the club at which I worked. Why did she so? Perhaps the facts will explain. A white limo pulled up to the front of the club. As usual, I opened the passenger-side rear compartment door to assist exiting patrons out of the limo. Two men who appeared in age to be from 55-70 emerged. Each of these men were wearing the sort of clothing which appears casual but is far too costly for any but very wealthy folks. Each had on numerous very expensive gold chain bracelets, large gold rings with and without large diamond, and other, gemstones. One of the men had the sort of gold neck chain usually associated more with tasteless showbiz and hip-hop celebrities than with responsible millionaires and/or government officials. Each man had immaculately coifed white hair, and perfect smiles full of moviestar teeth shining white and smooth. Their tans were so deep and perfectly wrinkle-free that their skin appeared as if made of fresh warm caramel. The features and appearance of at least one of the men are so clear in my memory that if shown a picture of him as he appeared in the mid-1990s, I could give a definite ID of that man even now. As the men got out, they smiled at me. One of them began to shake my hand, and was just opening his mouth to say something to me, when a familiar glossy blue-white beehive hairdo began to emerge from the limo door I was holding open. She was facing downward as she began to exit the limo, but for no more than a second or three. As the two men with her saw my eyes fix on her imminent exit from the limo, they each began to turn to assist her from the limo. Alas, they were too late! In those 2-3 seconds the woman had managed to fall flat on her face as she tried to fumble her way out and stand up! It was one of the worst 'face dives' I witnessed in my decade+ of working with inbound and outbound rich, drunk, patrons. As the two men reached down to raise her up, they each had to use both hands to take each of her arms at elbow and armpit to get her, and keep her, on her feet. One of the reasons it was so hard for her to do so on her own became clear as she tried to look around her as they raised her off of the ground. As she turned her head in my direction it was apparent the only reason she was vertical at all was that the men were literally holding her up so that her feet were barely on the ground. Good thing they did, because as she turned to face me her head was wobbling around on her neck as if she were unconscious or dead. As her face came within 18 inches of mine her eyes showed no sign of recognizing even that a person was standing in front of her, let alone any sign of knowing who I was, or what role I was filling during her evening out. I immediately exclaimed 'Hey, you're Ann Richards!..' She seemed to try to speak to me, but all I heard from her was a drunken murmur as she turned away. The alcohol on her breath was as strong as it was unmistakeable to anyone who has ever been that close to a drunk, let alone to anyone who has worked for years in the nightclub industry. Each of the two men with her caught my eye, and one of them literally winked at me with a smile as he momentarily let go of her right elbow to give me the universal sign of index finger-to-lips: 'Shhh!' It was obvious in their handling of her virtually inert form that this was not at all unusual or unexpected for them, nor for her. At no point did she seem to be even aware of the fact they were holding her arms at all, let alone that she was being held up by her arms in a fashion more typical of drunks getting the 'bum's rush' from club bouncers than of a nationally known political figure. As the two men carried her into the club her head was barely vertical, and her feet were literally dragging the ground. They exited the club in a similar fashion as they entered, meaning they carried her out the same way, but then with her in even worse condition than on her entry to the club. They spent about 10-15 or so minutes inside the club. My experience in that industry told me that on seeing her the club management instantly realized they had to get her out of the club before scandal legal or public had a chance to erupt. This was despite the owners and management of the club being solid and vocal in their support of her gubernatorial candidacy! They left the same way they entered: with Ann Richards being literally carried out of the club, but this time with her head hanging down and her mouth hanging wide open, by her two man 'escort service', placed in the limo, and the limo sedately leaving the club premises. As far as I am concerned, Ann Richards is a proven alcoholic/drug abuser, as well as one of the most brazen public liars in American electoral history. Not to mention being a corrupt and complete failure as a state Governor. No wonder she and the Clintons got along so well, lol! There are so many obvious signs that for her, lying ways are her way of life. This article appears clealy to have been 'consensus-ized' predominantly by her sycophants/fans, or by those too ignorant of facts, for it to have gone this long with little objection. Thus, my assertion this nearly citation-less WP account which lionizes her in every way imaginable, yet somehow barely mentions any of her self-admitted 'problems' personal or political, is in fact no more than her sycophantic liberal-feminist fan base revising history via WP... As usual on WP: Consensus = Factless-ness, eh? --Whraglyn (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

These sorts of things can be added to the article provided they are verifiable and cited to reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

{{POV-check-section}}

Section seems to be written from Amnesty POV -- one I endorse, fwiw, but still recognize as contrary to WP policy. - PhilipR 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re election Race

I recall my former girl friend telling me that Ann Richards had been endorsed by the residents of Texas' death row and she lost the race with George W Bush in what my girlfriend described as a "fry off" 80.96.217.220 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) John Walkley

Disambig

I wasn't sure how to disambig at the top to two different people (I just wrote an article on a third Ann Richards), so I did it manually. If you can fix, please do. Algabal 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sealtexas.jpg

Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Waco?

Someone should include her role in the Waco siege--didn't it occur during her term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.52.20 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC) It should be since that is one of the primary reasons she lost was when she stepped down and activated the National Guard. Which allowed the US Government the slaughter of innocent people and especially women and children. And, she also knew the Davidians since she grew up in Waco.

Infobox image

Why do we need to have this non-free image? I remember there was a ruckus a while back when I replaced it with the free alternative Image:AnnRichards 20050210.jpg because it "didn't accurately portray her as was when she was in office" (not an actual quote, but the gist of the argument). While I still don't buy that argument because free media always trumps non-free media, it's now completely rendered moot because Image:Ann-Richards-STS-40-JSC-visit-1992.jpg is from her period in office and now WP:NFCC #1 (non-free media cannot be used when there is a free equivalent that serves the same encyclopedic purpose) should be satisfied. What reasoning is there to keep the non-free portrait? howcheng {chat} 03:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no argument to the contrary, I have removed the non-free image in favor of the free image. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unref'd statements

"Other people attribute her loss to the fact that she vetoed the Concealed Carry Bill that would have allowed licensed citizens to carry guns for self-defense inside public establishments without the owner's permission. Bush would thereafter sign a concealed-gun law, which was pushed by a future Republican lawmaker, state Representative Suzanna Hupp of the Killeen-based district. Another factor may have been President Bill Clinton and the national Democratic party's unpopularity in Texas at the time, as Richards had played a prominent role in the 1992 Democratic National Convention, and the Bush campaign successfully associated her with the national party."

This section seems to be an unreferenced editorial. Any ref's for it? Reboot (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

The section from George_W._Bush#Governor_of_Texas on the election is stronger than this version. Reboot (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)