Talk:Ted Strickland/Archive 1

Archive 1

2006 Governors Race

It might make sense to remove the list of competing democrat nominees since they may change frequently (is Springer in the race?). This information is covered in the list of Governors of Ohio and Candidates which has a link in this article. The other race candidate pages don't list their competitors. I could see mentioning them if some form of noteworthy intercourse happened between them.

-- N okla 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Needs Segmentation

If someone has time to segment this article, it really could use it. Just one big blob. It might also be nice if a photo were added. Compare to some of the other 2006 Ohio gubernatorial candidate entries.

-- N okla 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The picture is already there, but I took a stab at segmentation, and also removed much of the history of the Congressman's predecessor, Bob McEwen and his GOP primary. That material is covered in the entry for McEwen and a condensed version seemed to better suit this page.

--Dirtgirl 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Name?

What is Strickland's birth name. Theodore? Edward? Even if he doesn't use it, it should be noted somewhere in the article. Acsenray 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just "Ted." That's not unhead of. Since none of his websites list another name, I'm going to delete the "Theodore" (and the accompanying fact tag). --Chancemichaels 15:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Political Stances

Any more details on Strickland's political positions? I understand that the NRA, Pat Robertson, and other major conservative groups opposed Strickland at one point, but I would like to know more details. The article on Blackwell is more detailed on his stances; is this because his stances are louder?

DaDoc540 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-candidate attack sites?

What's the general policy on listing attack websites in the "Links" section? The "Anti-Ted" site is pretty nasty. If we start linking to the Web equivalent of political attack ads, all of a sudden the political pages are going to be flooded - there are a lot of them out there. If his campaign opponent has a web page dealing with Strickland's record, that would be one thing. But an attack site from an ill-defined group? Doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. Thoughts? --Chancemichaels 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I agree that based on this policy, we should not be adding links to attack sites. That policy states in effect, that any unsubstantiated and potentially libelous material should be removed immediately. It is not a stretch to apply this to external links on the page as well. So in effect, our links should be NPOV. Bcirker 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have deleted it. --Chancemichaels 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Source for "Theodore"?

I see Strickland's full name is now given as "Theodore." I've been trying to find out what his birth name is for some time and I haven't had any luck. What's the source for "Theodore"? Acsenray 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Is it just me or should the references be written differently? I have never been a fan of just listing url addys.Vbofficial 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Need a New Photo

The current photo is considerably out-of-date. Can someone find an allowable photo (I'm not familiar enough with the i.p. rules)?--kubfann (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Outsourcing

Equating getting one company to set up business in your home state to "supporting outsourcing corporations" is synthesis. A clear statement from Strickland is needed on this specific topic in order to attribute this view to him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The only thing a factual encyclopedia article should go by is the actual history of the subject. Linking Ted Strickland to all outsourcing would be synthesis, but merely stating the fact that he does indeed support an outsourcing corporation is not synthesis. Giving 19 million in tax breaks to an outsourcing corp would certainly be a sign of support. Parallel process (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article describes Tata as a "software services and consulting company". Shall we use that? It's equally valid. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We can use that, of course. Additional information should also be given, as there are certainly different types of software service companies. Each has their own labor practices, specialties, and main uses; however I believe the article should be brief in this respect as it is not an article about Tata. There is more than enough credible, mainstream sources about Tata to give the article an accurate feel for what they do. I believe this portion of the article should be factual, not emotional (not defensive or attacking). Parallel process (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And the Computerworld article indicates that the Ohio facility brought an additional 250 American jobs to Tata, which had 900 Americans on payroll previously. Why not say that Strickland's tax incentives caused Tata to increase their American workforce by roughly 30%, if the location of Tata's jobs is so critical? While it's supportable by facts, I see that inclusion as introducing spin into the article—just as calling Tata an "outsourcing" company spins the text. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As we discussed in the Giffords entry, outsourcing is not considered a negative by all. Many consider the additional corporate profits allowed by the practice to be a boost to the national economy as it increases competitiveness. So I don't think we should neccessarily assume outsourcing is a negative; or that pointing out that a corporation's main service is outsourcing is an attack on that corporation. Here is a suggestion for this section-

"Governor Strickland is a supporter of India's Tata Consultancy Services. Strickland offered $19 million in tax breaks and other incentives to get Tata in Ohio. In return, Tata added 250 American hires to it's workforce; an increase of 30%. Although more than 50% of Tata's revenue comes from North America, of the more than 123,000 workers employed by Tata Consultancy Services, only 900 are Americans, says a report Tata issued in July 2009." Parallel process (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Supporter" is misleading - I'm sure Strickland would "support" any company doing business in his state. And the last half of the paragraph is pure coatracking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with that. The support for the outsourcing corp is shown with a 19 million dollar tax break. If he has given such a large sum to another company, I think it could certainly be added. Your accusation of 'coatracking' is very vague. The fact is that Strickland gave 19 million in tax cuts to an outsourcing corporation to entice them to move a large facility to Ohio. I don't see why you object so strongly to a encyclopedia article stating as much, as it is definitely noteable political stance considering the economic/labor ramifications (positive or negative). Parallel process (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This, "Although more than 50% of Tata's revenue comes from North America, of the more than 123,000 workers employed by Tata Consultancy Services, only 900 are Americans, says a report Tata issued in July 2009." is coatracking. The article is about Strickland (and possibly his interactions with Tata), not Tata's business practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It merely gives gives a small amount of necessary background information. It's not even necessarily negative. A number of mainstream media organizations have published a numerous articles stating such cost cutting measure is good. FOX news, Bloomberg, WSJ, ect. So this is not an attack oh the Governor.

From wikipedia

"What to do about coatracks

An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate."

According to this definition, what I have added is not a 'coatrack'. It is not excessive, it is not even biased. Parallel process (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Suffice to say, I don't agree with what you're proposing to add so it's best to wait for other editors' opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? What about the great benefits of additional corporate profits? You could add that part to the article Parallel process (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not if it's not sourced. I would be ok with: "Governor Strickland's administration offered $19 million in tax breaks and other incentives to get India's Tata Consultancy Services, a software services and outsourcing company, into Ohio. In return, Tata added 250 American hires to it's workforce; an increase of 30%." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Corporate Tax Incentives

Governor Strickland's administration offered $19 million in tax breaks and other incentives to get India's Tata Consultancy Services, a outsourcing and software services company, into Ohio. In return, Tata added 250 American hires to it's workforce; a dramatic increase of 30%. Tata currently hires 123,000 employees globally and receives 50% of it's revenue from North America. Parallel process (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's ok. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am adding the content. With a slight change, not considering these operations outsourcing is like calling McDonalds a fruit vendor because they sell apple slices. Parallel process (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add the content without citing a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation was correct and very reliable. Please refrain from vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallel process (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What citation? There was no reference included with the text added; per WP:BLP, such changes may be reverted at will and in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The citation was buried mid-paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free (of course) to add to the entry Parallel process (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Marc Dann

I added Marc Dann link. I was surprised that as the pricipal in such a prominent skandal he was not included in the skandal section. This skandal was in the Youngstown Vindicator, and I would use this as my source if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.135.135 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Strickland 2014

Should we mention that Strickland is considering a rematch against John Kasich in 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.66.210 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1