Talk:Terry McAuliffe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Terry McAuliffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

The consensus is against including the words in bold in the proposed text as non-neutral and undue weight. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the first sentence of the Voting rights sub-section include the words in bold? "On April 22, 2016, McAuliffe signed an executive order restoring voting rights to more than 200,000 ex-felons in Virginia, including those convicted of violent crimes such as murder and rape. Instaurare (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes. The phrase comes almost verbatim from the New York Times article that serves as the ref for the sentence. Numerous reliable sources include the fact that the order restored voting rights to ex-felons convicted of violent crime. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Instaurare (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No - We ought to follow the sources here. The subject of the sources that do mention the "murder and rape" thing is the executive order, not McAuliffe. Calling that specific factoid in relation to McAuliffe seems like it's just trying to unduly stress one particular part of what is a fairly sweeping executive order. Should we mention all the folks who aren't rapists and murderers who will have their rights restored too? Or do we just want to focus on the rapists and murderers? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Follow the sources like the New York Times? Instaurare (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Instaurare: - Was the subject of Times article the executive order or McAuliffe? Is the subject of this WP article the executive order or McAuliffe? NickCT (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • NoThe states of Vermont and Maine each allow prisoners to vote. I'm not aware that this has ever caused a problem, and it is an important way to reintegrate prisoners into society. So why should arbitrary classes of prisoners be set up to discriminate over some, rather than others? Who would "cast the first stone" in making such differentiations? Activist (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion on the merits of the order itself is irrelevant. We're discussing what should be included in the article. Instaurare (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • No. Allow me to be more clear. I don't think the words after "Virginia," should be included at all, bolded or otherwise. Thanks. Activist (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No - While the content is sourced, there is no need to cherry pick specific types of "ex-felons". Meatsgains (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure of the RFC@Meatsgains:, @NickCT:, @Instaurare:,@Mandate41: The request for comment has been open for eight days. Instaurare authored the original edit to the article on 23 August, restored it twice after deletions, then made the Request for Comment on 23 September. That editor found no support for keeping the phrase which had been repeatedly deleted. In the past eight days, three additional different editors here have commented against keeping it. I would suggest that the RfC has demonstrated a consensus against retention and that it be closed. Activist (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Came here via bot pint, after proposed closure. I'll add my no vote, since emphasizing that seems like a rather blatant bit of editorializing, and further add that I agree there seems to be a consensus in favor of "no". Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • No. The crimes for which people have already completed their sentence, are not relevant to the issue of voting rights. The implication that allowing freed men and women to vote is too dangerous, is absurd. Bcharles (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No. This language doesn't appear to be neutral to me. The fact that the New York Times article doesn't mention "murder and rape" until the 8th paragraph suggests that this detail isn't sufficiently notable to include in the first sentence of a 3-sentence summary. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No. For the reasons cited by Chris Hallquist and Activist. If a pardon means anything, even if the the media re-tries a case for reasons of salacious or malicious intent, it should not be recorded in an ancyclopaedia as a questionable pardon. To support or question a pardon would make Wikipedia a respondent in a legal case. I comment here as a disinterested party invited by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.