Talk:Deval Patrick/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Misc

HANDSOME AFRICAN-AMERICAN MAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.35.122 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Reverted obvious vandalism by "Heeley4Gov". 24.218.110.67 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"For the first time in U.S. history two black governors serve co-currently." How on Earth does this pertain to Deval Patrick himself? If no one defends, I'm removing. HunterXI (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

repeated removal of ciriticism section and link

Despite my personal political support for this candidate, removal of unbiased analysis of criticism and the link the anti-Patrick blog is against the spirit of Wikipedia and I will continue restoring this if poeple keep removing it. I've been very dilligent in making sure information of criticism situated here is not biased attacks, and as careful as possible in making sure biographical information and discussion of achievements are not biased either. I hope people will continue to contribute positively instead of just removing factual information they perhaps don't want publicized. Articles on current political candidates require a very sensitive attention to balance and detail. Alex 14:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

someone also wrote ne saying my retort to a criticism was biased because it was anti-Healey. it was from the Boston Herald, so if that guy is reading this: get a life.

Campaign Lies as Facts

Do we really need to copy everything from Deval Patrick's campaign biography onto Wikipedia? There is no proof he grew up poor or recieved a scholarship to Milton Academy. It's pretty clear that he grew up wealthy and his parents paid his way in school. The only proof otherwise comes from his fluffed campaign biography. 75.3.23.157 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

-- The above is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on Wikipedia. You, sir, are a fool. Do you really think that prestigious schools like Milton Academy and Harvard would let his constant references to them slip by if they were false? Seriously, what is wrong with you? o_0

I agree with the above, to say that his entire family history is factually inaccurate is ridiculous. He has participated at events at both Harvard and Milton since the start of the campaign, so obviously he's being truthful about the nature of his attendance.

Quota King Remark

I tried to deal with the Quota King remark in its most unbiased way, including correctly noting the person who made the statement and when it was made. I know it's been a hotly edited issue here on this page. --okieman1200 04:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


For instance calling Clint Bolcik, an "Anti-Affirmative Action activist" which he is, instead of a "conservative activist" which is more subjective and has a different connotation. --okieman1200 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks a lot. Stilgar135 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the remark, stop editing this remark! Recently the blog Blue Mass Group, urged their readers to change the wikipedia entry, I am a Patrick supporter too, like the people who keep removing it, but it is better to have the remark factually dealt with then to not talk about it and have people's only knowledge of the remark be through an opposing campaign.--168.122.175.83 00:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Honestly, I have yet to find anything critical on the other candidates posted on wikipedia. Could we tone down the criticism portion of his entry? Not to sound overly biased, however, it seems to take a larger than usual portion of the entry. No, I am not trying to sway the entry to being Pro-Patrick, just bring the level of equality shared by other candidates on wikipedia.

The proper way to do that is to increase the criticism entries for other candidates. Ideally, all the candidates' pages should have well-documented histories of the criticisms levied against them; just because some of them fail to do that does not mean that others should be brought down to their level. Stilgar135 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I found the Kerry Healey article to have no criticisms from other candidates and the fact she is double digits behind in the polls.
Healey has plenty of criticisms now.... I think its just easier to find dirt on Deval coz hes an attorney who has defended a lot of vicious criminals... What has healey done? -peterp

One of the problems with the criticisms section here isn't the critiques themselves - they obviously belong there - but the language used to describe them is atrocious. It's clearly prejudiced and quite frankly, bad journalism/reporting/wikipedia-ing. I added some much-needed context to some of the entries, without substituting any language, but some of the language should still be changed. However, I'll leave that to more hard-core wikipedians to do. ~Ryan

Views Section -More information is needed on his views. He has extremely detailed views and policies on dozens of issues that should be reflected here. There's so much text dedicated to his criticisms, but almost nothing dedicated to his positions. Over the next few days, I can add some information, but hopefully others will as well (especially since I'm not good with html on wikipedia).

Extremely detailed views and policies? Can you please provide some of these views? If you're "not good with HTML" just post some links here that outline his extremely complex views and policies and I'll add them for you.--Kester Teague 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

-read his website...

formatting of the article

I think it would create a much better biographical article if the controversies and criticism were put in context within the biography relevent to when they occured, and add a section on the campaign for governor. Alex 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on Patrick and Healey baldly unbalanced

At this writing, the "Controversy" section under the Deval Patrick entry details the major criticisms levelled at Deval Patrick in the current campaign for Governor.

The "Controversy" section under the Kerry Healey entry only discusses *her* criticisms of other candidates.

There's no way that "unbiased" would be an appropriate word to describe this circumstance.

I agree, this needs to be fixed. -Fearfulsymmetry 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed this article -- the level of detail given to those controversial issues is inappropriate; I don't think I ended up removing any of the references, so all the raw facts are still available. Healey's article seems to be the one with bigger problems... but, the main criticism of Healey's campaign was criticism of her negative campaign. Still, the fact that that article still has problems isn't relevant to this article right now. Mangojuicetalk 14:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He's NOT Governor yet

PLEASE, stop editing in Patrick as the 71st Governor; he hasn't taken office yet. Patrick may not become governor (though unlikely); he could die (before inauguration). The thing is it's not 100% certain he'll become Governor (though it's expected). An example of what I getting to, would be Lawton Chiles & Buddy MacKay Governors of Florida. GoodDay 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He's Governor now; accept it :D Armyrifle 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suck Eggs

The criticisms of Patrick given in this article are petty and insubstantial. They are not major criticisms about important decisions he has made – they are the products of political muck-raking on the part of Patrick’s opponents. It seems incorrect to suggest that every article about a public figure on Wikipedia should contain a separate section on the critiques levied against them unless those critiques come from more than one, solitary source. In this case, that one source is the Healy campaign. But I am not campaigning to have these criticisms removed from the article. Just by the minuscule weight that they carry, it shows how little substantial criticism Patrick has received. This mean-natured, grasping-at-straws, ineffective fear-mongering is what lost Healy the campaign. Suck eggs, GOP. --- House of Scandal 12:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! The counterrevolutionary devils who dared slander our Glorious Leader must be purged from the politburo and reformed through hard labor in the gulag! --Roger Williams 09:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Three years scrubbing the harbor outflow pipe for that last comment! CApitol3 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Killercoke.org

The above link is highly questionable per guideline WP:EL, as the link contains both original research (example) and reliable sources (example). Besides that there could be too much of Boston.com to cite all of them, the (original) link itself might not even have direct and symmetrical relationship with this article. In addition, this link could be violating the spam guideline by promoting the organization. Share your thoughts. Regards, Vic226(chat) 09:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really confused: linking to an external site with original research and reliable sources is questionable? I have questions about including it, but the arguments you wrote are the reasons I think it should stay. Alex 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Transition

As Patrick's administration unfolds, let's make sure that we include notable material without getting too specific. Given that no other Governor of Massachusetts has any information on his transition, are two paragraphs not a bit much? Maybe not, but as I said, let's keep this a reasonably broad overview. Biruitorul 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of portrait

The picture in question appears both on the governor's website, and as a promotional material on his campaign's site. Where are we to get a replacement? Is it suggested that users must photograph the subject? CApitol3 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tax abuse section/controversy/NPOV

There NEEDS to be a controversy section, in his first month as Governor Patrick has already had:

  • The cadillac controversy
  • The state police helicopter controversy
  • The drapes/office furniture controversy
  • Hiring a $70k/year appointment secretary for his wife
  • The Citibank controversy

I have removed the tax abuse section to this talk page. I think tax abuse as a section header needs to be toned down in the NPOV category. Plus, the numbers are off. Boston.com has a solid article detailing the expenses which I can add in a bit. Lets just clean this up on the talk page before adding back to the article. It will probably be a minor story in the long run, so perhaps it does not warrant a desicated section either.

The section, as it reads here is:

"==Tax abuse==

 + Deval Patrick has recently spent some of the tax payers money on personal things including a $1000 a month lease on a new Cadillac and $10,000 for drapes. He also gave his wife a full time job as his secretary even though she already has a full time job. These have caused much comotion, particuarly by talk show host Howie Carr. When Deval Patrick made a speech on this he said that he thinks that a govenor's office should look good.He also did not apologize in the speech." 

Hiberniantears 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we take a deep breath, and pull back from the edge? News organizations' use of the term tax abuse in this tempest about furniture and car expenditures is no indication of NPOV, or its approprite use here. A google or Ask search of the term "tax abuse" points to a context of individual reporting fraud, not how an elected official spends tax revenue. Print media has been nearly as lazy in looking into this as the local TV affiliates WBZ and WHDH (both have politically conservative ownership and management). The media was just as likely tipped off by "friendly fire" angry old school Democrats as it was by GOP staffers or intrepid news research. No question, Patrick showed no common sense, or political instinct. Paying for the drapes himself, paying for the Cadillac, or choosing an efficient car with low emissions would have demonstrated some savvy. An ongoing daily barrage of POV edits on Patrick's article does as much damage to wiki's credence as the daily apple polishing and peacock editing on Mitt's. Strict enforcement of NPOV is needed on both. CApitol3 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I nominated this page for a semi-protect yesterday, but the vandalism was not deemed frequent enough. Just keep an eye on the controversy section of this article, as it seems to mirror WBZ's Keller's nightly partisan diatribe. An encyclopedia is no place for political sniping. Hiberniantears 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one you put the tax abuse part in.I called it tax abuse becuase i wasnt sure what to call it and that is also why i made it a section header.I do think we should include it somewhere, but i do agree that giving it a section header was a mistake. Parralax 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the section are that, a month into the administration, a controversy section (as a header, or otherwise) involving the decorating budget, and carpool issues does not yet warrant a place in the article. More so now that this has been resolved. That said, if excessive spending is still occuring six months down the road, then I think this would begin to take on a defining charicature of the administration, and would warrant mention in the article. However, at this time it really just looks like a one-off episode of poor decision making.Hiberniantears 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While Deval Patrick has made some more controversial decisions.Such as trying to help the convivected rpaist more and trying to give a former client of his a loan(can you sing Annie Warbucks' "You think your above the law).So i think we should make a section."Controversy"

Also should mention last week he said he was drawing back from work as governor. I really think this guy has shown himself to be way over his head and capabilities, and has become something of a train wreck. I think he's positioning himself to resign if he has to, either as a result of ethics charges or eventual impeachment. - MSTCrow 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nothing meriting a controversy sectioon as yet.I don't care for the stupid choices about curtains, furniture and the car, and am disappointed by the man's judgment on the assistant for his wife and call to Citigroup, but he hasn't broken the law. Let's try to keep from turning this into a partisan battle. CApitol3 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Tax Abuse" is not the term

Tax abuse refers to violating the IRS code or state tax laws on personal tax returns, either from under reporting income, declaring false deductions, sheltering income, or avoiding collection. Legally spending tax revenue in a controversial manner is not tax abuse. CApitol3 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations, linked footnotes

A considerable amount of information is appearing without citation, and in an imflammatory style not coinsistent with wikipedia's guidelines for biographical articles. The following links outline writing and citing sources for biographical articles of livig people:

Thanks. CApitol3 18:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago one could argue that the section was unnecessary.. due to the recent press (national even), though, the section on spending controversy now needs to be here. However please make sure that the facts match the citations, for example, the paragraph claimed that Amy Gorin was fired but Boston Globe articles report that she resigned. Rhobite 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I take issue with this sentence, but am hesitant to remove it, because it could be verified.

Patrick's margin of victory had long "coat-tails," increasing the Democratic party margin, already a supermajority, in both houses of Massachusetts General Court, the state's legislature.

If you wrote this, please cite your source.

JakeZ 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

This article has been bot-tagged by {{ChicagoWikiProject}} and {{WikiProject Illinois}}. This was because the article has Category:People from Chicago in it. If you would not like to be associated with either of these projects the easiest solution is to remove this category and the category templates above. For other solutions contact me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Future plans?

Does anyone doubt that Deval will be gone in no time if his homey and main man Barack Hussein Obama becomes President? Goodbye and good riddance. A catastrophically bad governor. No surprise since he never held elective office. That's what you get if you swallow his feel good 'politics of hope' BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.55.159 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That was uncalled for and Gov. Patrick has said many times he has no plans of going into Obama's cabinet Gang14 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets not discuss or speculate on his future plans nor use this place to bash/defend his performance. There are plenty of blogs on the internet for that kind of thing. Hardnfast (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ELNO 11

The WP:External links guideline says that editors should normally not link to blogs:

"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)"

The standard rules for external links about living people also apply. Consequently, the 'anti-Deval Patrick' blog is not an appropriate external link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing crucial elements of the governor's policies?

The actual information regarding the initiatives of Deval Patrick as governor seems to be really missing some crucial information. There's nothing about Massachusetts winning Race to the Top under his watch, recent energy policy changes, capping healthcare insurance rates, and infrastructure improvements over the last few years. The governor's done a lot of stuff for the state, and regardless of partisan viewpoints, there's a lot of policy that should be integrated into the article.

68.196.189.97 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)