Jump to content

Talk:Mark Warner/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Government Performance Project

I was reading this over, and did a quick lookup of this report. According to the web site, Virginia, in 2005, recieved a list of A- grades across the board except on money, which was an A ([Government Performance Project Report]), yet this article states:

"Virginia and Utah tied with an A- overall, but Virginia got A's across the board, prompting Warner to dub Virginia "the best managed state in the nation."

This statement appears to be completly innacurate, and there's no citation on his quote. I'm tempted to modify this section, but I wanted to put this in here in case i've somehow missed something. I'm sure it can be "reformulated" with more accurate information by those who maintain this article. --Jmathies 13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some cleanup, including the above reference to the study. The article rambles quite a bit and seems to get off topic, i've tried to remedy this a couple places but the article still needs some work. --Jmathies 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Misc

The List of Governors of Virginia lists 76 governors of Virginia under statehood. How, then, can Warner be the 69th, as claimed on this page? 69.19.2.225 08:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some of the governors have held multiple non-consecutive terms; the number of 76 indicates the number of discrete terms held, but only 69 individuals have served in the office. The image claiming Warner is the 69th is from the Governor of Virginia's website, so apparently the state prefers to use that method of counting. Ground 19:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bush numbers

Why are we including this comparison in the lead of this article? The entire point seems to be to say that Warner is more popular than Bush in Virginia -- what is the point of this? Are the two in contending offices? Not really, since they are in different levels of government. Are the two likely to face each other in an election? No, obviously not. There are dozens of political figures who would be a more relevant comparison than Bush -- more interesting to compare, for instance, Virgina legislative leaders. Describing 40% as "tepid" is also POV. Frankly, the intention seems purely to get a dig in at Bush. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

40% is always a tepid number, be them Democrats or Republicans. Warner and Bush are the last two major officeholders to win a statewide election in the state of Virginia. However, I have now removed the mention to protect Bush from being compared with Warner. –Uris 02:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From tla. Clearly, the piece on Mark Warner is a puff piece and will be recommended for major change or outright removal. Only what Warner press releases consider his successes are sighted. This is as unbalanced an article on a Virginia governor as I've found so far. It is also as detailed as one might expect from a slavish Warner supporter, and completely lacks neutrality, when viewed by an actual citizen of Virginia who has seen the Warner term from within the state. Warner DID wangle the largest tax increase in Virginia history, and it DID extract far more money from the taxpayers than was needed for the state's budget. He DID declare a water emergency during a heavy rain in the areas affected by a short-term drought, and DID declare the state's right to ban the use of private wells in defiance of thousands of years of real estate law and any common-sense understanding of the state's right to control water sources on private property. Auto and driver's licenses increased drastically in expense during Warner's term, as did the cost of transferring property of any type. Any license or fee charged by the state increased in cost at a rate many times that of inflation during this governor's term of office. Just because a supporter doesn't want to include the facts, should they really get away with inflicting a puff piece like this article and be able to pass it off as factual? Well, there is a whole world outside of wiki that can be informed that this website is an unreliable source. It certainly relies on the selective urban and Northern Virginia press as major sources, and neither represents the state as a whole.

Actual citizens of Virginia are the ones that have made him their most popular Governor on record. By the way, I was born and raised and voted many times in western to central Virginia. You are free to cite newspapers from around the state other than the "selective urban and Northern Virginia press" but I don't think you can find any actual unbiased sources to support your position that is at odds with the vast majority of Virginians — all of whom, by the way, support Mark Warner far more than they supported Jim Gilmore or George Allen. –Uris 11:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the poll numbers for George Allen are higher, in a head to head race, for George Allen than Mark Warner. Still, no mention in your puff piece of the less than stellar moments of the Warner term, but that's fine, they'll come out if he runs for public office again. By the way, it's helpful if you know or care who commissions the poll before you cite it as inclusive of 'all or even a majority of Virginians'. The polls you cite, if you look into their methodology as I have, can be less random and more targeted to specific groups than you've suggested.

Wrong. The Roanoke Times, far from the urban centers of Virginia that you seem to despise (read: Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) released this poll here in July showing Warner defeating Allen in a statewide race. But since you are a self-proclaimed expert on the polling process, why don't you explain to us how you've looked into their methodology, as you have, and have discovered their biased secrets. Those darned Southwest Virginia rural liberals! Care to elaborate? –Uris 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


No Longer Governor

I have tagged this article for clean-up. It needs to be updated to reflect the fact that as of today, he is a former governor. --TommyBoy 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup complete. --TommyBoy 10:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of Fiscal Policy

I just wanted to say that the paragraph outlining Mark Warner's budget policies is accurate but it could say more: Warner broke a solemn campaign promise and OK'ed the largest tax increase in Virginia history. --StevenL 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I have proposed that the article on Warner'a wife, Lisa Collis should be merged with this article. See Talk:Lisa Collis for details. --TommyBoy 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have re-established Lisa Collis as a redirect to this article. --TommyBoy 09:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Views

I propose that there should be a "views" section for Warner, like there is for other presidential candidates. Schmorrell 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NNDB Source

I noticed that this article contains an external link to NNDB. In comments on Talk:Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales suggested that NNDB should never be cited as a source on Wikipedia. Considering his comments, should that link be removed from this article? --TommyBoy 06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, User:WaldoJ has removed the external link. --TommyBoy 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that -- I should have checked the talk page. I'd known about Jimbo's views on NNDB -- plus, the information was useless -- so I just pulled it. --WaldoJ 15:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mark Warner 2008.jpg

Image:Mark Warner 2008.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 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 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Large $1.5B Tax Increase Needs Further Context

It is quite true that Governor Warner raised taxes by approximately $1.5B while in office. But that tax increase was in response to the $3B budget shortfall that he inherited from the Republican legislature and previous Republican governor Gilmore. In order to deliver a balanced budget, as constitutionally required in Virginia, Governor Warner, with the cooperation of the Republican legislature, choose to close the gap with both tax hikes and spending cuts. Increased taxes met half the short fall and cuts in spending closed the gap.

The Right will claim that the gap should have been completely closed with spending cuts and the Left will claim it should have all been done with increased taxes. Warner and the GOP legislature found a compromise solution that got it done, but didn't please either side. By stating that Warner raised taxes without putting the reason for the increase in its proper context (there no mention of the budget shortfall) adds political bias to this entry.

DCgent 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not contend that anything should be changed here as I am not a registered user for Wikipedia, but this comment "But that tax increase was in response to the $3B budget shortfall that he inherited from the Republican legislature and previous Republican governor Gilmore. In order to deliver a balanced budget, as constitutionally required in Virginia..." does not inject bias in the sense that Republicans will disagree with the method, but will rather disagree with the reason. There is a fallacy of logic in this point made: If the Virginia Governor is Constitutionally required to submit a balanced the budget, wouldn't that mean Governor Gilmore would have to submit a balanced budget as well? If not, why has their been no push to bring legal action? There have been numerous sources cited that point to there never being a budget shortfall that would call into major question Mark Warner's method for breaking his campaign promise of not raising taxes. In fact, both sources that I will provide contend that there was actually a substantial budget surplus. Also, it should be noted that when Gov. Gilmore left office, the "Rainy Day Fund" was completely funded with $1 billion. Sure doesn't sound like an fiscal crisis if you ask me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102289.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15458

Furthermore, in a recent talk to a Politics class at the University of Virginia, Mark Warner did not call his budget move a "tax increase" but rather a "tax reform". Why is he changing his tune if he was justified in in his reason for raising taxes initially? 199.111.167.217 08:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Additions

Since he is a former governor, I think we ought to add things like his accomplishments as governer.71.191.199.175 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Anonymous.

I'll be more than glad to do so in the coming weeks. I'll also add more info about his Senate campaign --Ram Astra (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

November 5, 2008 (original research)

I spotted Mark Warner the morning after the election, driving east on Braddock Rd. exiting onto I-495 south driving his red Oldsmobile Aurora with Virginia plates with only the number "2" and the word "Senator" (or possibly "Senate") in small letters. He may have just picked up the plates from the State Highway Patrol office a few miles west of there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.34.201 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have no problem with this entry,the site merely put my comments here rather than nearer the writer's snippy previous responses.Nice to read the sources again,it helps to explain how selective the writer was in cherry-picking his information.The now out-of-the-closet since the Webb campaign democrat cheerleader Larry Sabato is a source,so we can safely assume that at least some of the other sources are equally one-sided.This piece is so obviously biased and so obviously written by a Warner syncophant that any usefulness is only as a campaign flyer.This is the guy who definitely DID declare a water emergency during a torrential rainstorm,DID raise taxes more than any other governor of Virginia,and DID raise every tax and fee citizens were subjected to by dealing with the state,which he now calls'tax reform'.Not to mention his attempt to grant in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens while denying those lower rates to the families of military personnel stationed in Virginia.Warner is no more honest than his syncophants,and deserves no lifelong salary on the public's dime,as he would get if he serves a single Senate term.64.24.100.36 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)tla

This observation of the article lacking NPOV has been confirmed below—see Controversy section. my attempt to improve the article has been repeatedly reverted to preserve a biased view of the subject. The sources I used are, per WP:RS, well established and published, and the specific information offered has been confirmed by the office of the senator. The sources are as established and reliable, in some cases moreso, than other sources used here. The pertinent topic concerns matters and persons frequently reported upon in current events. The editorial assertions below are unsupported by any empirical criterion and appear purely subjective. This reflects badly on the article, the editor, and Wikipedia and its administrators.Hoppyh (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Replying to this ten year old comment rather than in the active section you created (which does not "confirm" POV exists in this article) is quite informative. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I rest my case.Hoppyh (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Onion piece doesn't belong here

Onion is famous yes, but just because the Onion did a story lampooning Warner doesn't mean it's included here. Same discussion took place on whether to include mention of an Onion piece on Max Baucus that said he was the "shittiest senator." Concensus was that it's a case of the Onion making its own news and therefore is not notable for inclusion in the article. They do hundreds of stories about senators/congressmen/presidents, and we don't include them. If multiple reliable sources do a story saying that Warner was featured in the Onion, then we could include it then.DCmacnut<> 02:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mark Warner. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mark Warner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mark Warner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Source

Who did that to the infobox's source code? It seems vaguely WP:NON. There is, at the very least, no uniformity to the data presented. Sleyece (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I did what I could to fix the infobox. Sleyece (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement on the Retirement of DNI James Clapper

Warner said:

“Director Clapper has served his country with honor and distinction for more than 50 years, beginning as a young intelligence officer who rose to head our nation’s intelligence community. I extend him and Sue my best wishes for a long, happy and well-deserved retirement following his many decades of service.

“Today’s public announcement by Director Clapper also underscores the need for the new Administration to move expeditiously in making key national security appointments. As that process continues, I hope President-Elect Trump will seek out personnel that embody the same experience, gravity of purpose, and service to country that have been a hallmark of James Clapper’s career.”

From

https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/11/sen-warner-statement-on-the-retirement-of-dni-james-clapper

Speaks for itself. ---Dagme (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Mental health facilities in Virginia

The care patients receive ! RainbowDiva2018 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Controversy Section

I have recently added text according to news reports from Fox News and covered by the Washington Examiner concerning a text messaging incident of Warner's. My edits have been reverted twice based on an editor's contention that the information is not from RS. It would be appropriate to discuss this. The reverts are not called for here as we are dealing with edits made in good faith and based on RS, and the material is not libelous or vand alistic. The information at issue also has been confirmed within the news reports by statements made by Sen. Burr, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee as well as Sen. Marco Rubio. These statements are included in the text added to the article. It is my sincere hope that discussion can proceed here in lieu of additional unwarranted reverts lacking discussion.Hoppyh (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What is RS?--Dagme (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted, and now we discuss, without your additions in the article.
That said, there should be no "controversy section" per WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. And the additions to this "controversy section" appear to be nothing. Why do we have these entries at all? A 2015 investigation without any information about its course? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. My edit was the addition referenced above. I agree with you about use of the title "Controversy" for the section. You did not include a reason for your reversion of my edit; do you also contend the sources I used are not reliable? The news report includes confirmation from Warner's office of the accuracy of the text messages.Hoppyh (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
See WP:BRD-NOT—Discussion is required for proper use of BRD. edit restored Hoppyh (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to respond in a day. It would've been better if you had pinged me or anyone else involved in editing rather than reinsert the contested material. Which I'll do now for Volunteer Marek.
I see now that it wasn't the Washington Examiner in question, it's the Washington Times. The Moonie Times is never a reliable source for anything. Fox News, that can be reliable at times, but it's best to treat them with caution, as they are their own echo chamber. I see almost nothing on "Mark Warner Christopher Steele" in the mainstream media. There's this, but it doesn't seem important enough to include in Warner's bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The WT just seems to repeat the Fox story. The "controversy" was manufactured on Breitbart, if I understand it correctly, and that it was a controversy is denied by Burr and Rubio, so it's not a controversy. What's fun is that WT is now biting Rubio for defending Warner. Etc. etc. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the WT? ---Dagme (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that detail. Breitbart, makes sense. Seems this is nothing more than a piece of debris blowing around the right wing blogosphere. Just because Trump tweets about it doesn't mean we include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Warner/Archive_1&oldid=1136992208"