Talk:Bob McDonnell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Factually inaccurate content

"Bob McDonnell attempted to negotiate a deal to provide greater transportation funding for Virginia without raising taxes.[2]"

The source for that statement reads:

Lawmakers adopted a historic transportation deal Wednesday that will churn out about $1 billion annually from new debt, regional taxes and tolls, closing a two-year battle over how to bankroll the state’s growing road and transit needs.

[...]

“It’s going to take three, five or even 10 years to fully see the impact,” said Attorney General Bob McDonnell, who played a key role in early negotiations on the compromise plan. “But this plan is good for the region’s economy, for tourism and for the military. It’ll attract jobs because businesses will see there’s money coming into the bank in Hampton Roads.”

67.142.130.14 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Northern Virginia comments by Huckabee

This is hardly a controversy. First of all, I live in Virginia and follow the news closely and never heard of it, so it couldn't have been too big a comment. Also, anyone who lives in Virginia can tell that there is a HUGE difference between NOVA and SOVA. How is it a controversy to point that out? 138.162.128.55 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I follow this sort of thing awfully closely, and I'd never heard of it, either. Consider this a vote in favor of that section being insufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion here. --WaldoJ (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs work to remove glaring POV

"Democrats tried to create a controversy"

Are you kidding me?

CurtisJasper (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fair criticism. Now that I review it, that whole section doesn't make any sense. Huckabee made the comments, not McDonnell. And it's just not a notable event. I've just yanked the section (WP:BOLD) for those reasons. --WaldoJ (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs additional citations?

I just compared the current version of this article to the Nov. 2008 version and I think it's pretty obvious this template no longer serves any purpose. Not only has there been no discussion of unverified information recently, there are in fact about twice as many citations in the article now. All told, I'd say it's above average compared to other Wikipedia articles. I think the article has some questionable material in here, but it is at least cited. I am removing the template now. WWB (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1989 Thesis

Any advice on how to properly integrate the following information into the present article within the context of Wikipedia's principles?--Robapalooza (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• page 12: “Radical contemporary attempts at redefinition of family eliminate the requirement for legal relationships, as observed in the National Organization for Women’s (NOW) concept of family as ‘people that are living together with deep commitment and with mutual needs and sharing.’“ (Related footnote 50 (page 73): “The obvious implication is that a family is anybody living together, including homosexuals, lesbians, or other arrangements where a ‘deep commitment’ exists.”)
• page 13: “Single life and other households of relatives or friends living together must be regarded as a proper exercise of liberty, but there is no requirement that government promulgate policies which treat alternative lifestyle living arrangements equally with the preferred traditional family.”
• page 20: “However, man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter.”
• page 33: “The [Family Protection Act of 1981] provided for a variety of traditional family support measures such as a restriction of federal funds for abortion, a restraint of federal interference with state statutes pertaining to child abuse, a redefinition of abuse to exclude parental spanking, and a prohibition of funds for homosexual legal services and other anti-family activities. The act incorporates sound principles of federalism and self-government, while refusing to acknowledge homosexuality and abortion as acceptable behaviors and actions.”
• page 58: “The family impact statement is a strong recommendation which at the least will inject family concerns into the policy debate, and at most will facilitate principled legislation that encourages traditional families, and discourages or sanctions alternate lifestyles and anti-family behaviors.”
• page 65: “For example, every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals, or fornicators. The cost of sin should fall on the sinner not the taxpayer.”
• pages 66-67: “Fight any attempts to redefine family by allowing special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers.”
• page 67: "The giftedness of the Republican philosophy is that it embraces the talents and worth of all peoples, while Democrats seek to shepherd a nation of powerless incompetents."

In another article, Van Jones, an administrator has stated, "Many of us held positions as college students that we don't hold as adults. I certainly did. If everyone who was a communist in college were still a communist, then the Communist Party would have stood a good chance of winning the last election." as a justification for keeping content out of said article. Is this "it was such a long time ago that it doesn't matter" policy being applied fairly? If so, any and all references to a university thesis need to be removed, or conversely, the Van Jones article needs more content added. Take your pick administrators. You are compelled to act one way or another, and are not above NPOV standards. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. McDonnell wasn't really "in college" when he wrote this, which might imply some youthful academic flight of fancy; rather, he was in his mid-thirties, already had two degrees, one from Notre Dame and another from Boston University, and was just beginning his political career when he wrote this thesis in partial fulfillment of his Master's and law degree at what was then the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) University (now Regent).--Robapalooza (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the thesis? None of it could be used without a reference link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.211.121 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it really merit its own section? - Schrandit (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] What exactly was liberal in the article? Has it been fixed already? --Firefly322 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

F bomb controversy

Forgive me, I fairly new here, but someone deleted a section I added about the F bomb controversy (source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/12/mcdonnell-drops-f-bomb-in-live-interview/)I can not find who did this and what their reason was. Can anyone help me figure out what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heynow09 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That was me, without a source I figured it was vandalism. Here is whats up - first and foremost, the section needs a sources proving its notability. Then, assuming those can be found, it would need a more appropriate title. Lastly, it is highly unusual to put a man's controversies at the top of his biography. For those reasons I reverted your edit.

It looks like you can find sources (though the one above didn't work for me), if you come back with them I can show you how to incorporate the information in to the article. - Schrandit (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused how CNN "doesn't work" for you. I can provide audio for you as well if that's what your looking for. Also, my moving the controversies to the top was because I feel they are the most currently relevant pieces of information in the article.

I meant the link, I could not get the link to work, I could and cannot see the story on my computer from the link you posted. The layout of these pages is pretty standardized, if you check the pages for other politicians you'll get the jest of things. - Schrandit (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Schrandit as your link is dead. Here is a new link with a copy of the audio. I will let one of you add it today if you like. If not I will do it later. But it must go to the bottom and/or in the Gov run section. The "Thesis controversy" should stand on its own so please do not add it to that section as they are different. So either a new section below that or if you think you can add it to the Gov race section in a netural way then that would work. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/12/gop-gubernatorial-candida_n_284605.html --Marlin1975 (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and here is the CNN link. Try and use both for refereance. One has a better story and also MsDonnells aid has said what happened the other has the sound of it. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/12/mcdonnell-drops-f-bomb-in-live-interview/ --Marlin1975 (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Major Overhaul

As the article is currently written, approximately 80% of the "Candidate for Governor" section is devoted to controversy. In an effort to eliminate bias, I'm attempting to add and rewrite information. Perhaps we may want to consider a new page devoted to Mr. McDonnell's candidacy for governor, similar to that of his opponent?

Neutral parties, please offer advice, as I'm relatively new to this.

Also, the main photo provided is a bit unflattering, with the individual's head turned to the side and eyes closed. Judging by the political views evident on the provider's Flikr page, I fear this may have been intentional. Does anyone know how to change the photo?

First off, good work and welcome to wikipedia.

Your additions added to the quality of the article but always remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth so every statement needs to have a reliable, third-party source to back it up (with a few exceptions). You did a decent job at that this go around but try to include more sources next time.

The picture is weak and this has bothered me as well. Along with other outlets for free images that exist on the internet Wikipedia maintains the Wikimedia Commons. I'm going to browse through there and see if anything pops up, if it doesn't please keep looking for a better picture.

Please feel free to come to me if you have any quesitons. - Schrandit (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, and the advice. I see another user has reverted my edits, so I've added more third-party sources. Hopefully this will solve any issue he or she may have.I.hate.pov (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I updated the picture from one that I personally took; I find it to be much better than the previous one Cubs2591 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.150.144 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thesis controversy

There seems to be an overabundance of detail over the thesis. It doesn't deserve so much space that it is in fact longer than his candidacy section or his personal life. Soxwon (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The information is relevant as it shows why it is a controversy and many right wing people do not want anyone to know about it. The paragraph summarizes why it is a controversy and is also the main part that is being used against McDonnell in ads and discussions. Even after many edits and discussion this has never come up as those that have worked on this agree that it is a major part of the controversy. --Marlin1975 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Many discussions? Are you talking about the above? I don't see a discussion anywhere. Saying that I want to remove it b/c of my political standings is both a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The section is overblown and has way too much detail as it is larger than his personal life and the rest of the campaign section. It's uncited, and really the material you keep adding is unneccessary detail. We're not here to continue the campaign against McDonnell, we're here to describe it. Soxwon (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. It summarizes what is in the thesis that makes it as such a controversy. Its citation is above it as the parts listed are direct from the thesis that is being talked about. But I will add it at the end for you. --Marlin1975 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So the entire section is based on just 2 articles by the Washington Post? I still maintain that the section is too overblown and that it goes into too much detail. Soxwon (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Soxwon. The thesis is a major controversy in the campaign. If Soxwon thinks the references are too few or insufficient, he should look up additional or more pertinent references and discussion. --Zeamays (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reread, I disagree that it gets more detail than the rest of the campaign and his personal life sections. Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In looking through the history, it appears I'm not the only one who has problems with the section. I see no reason why the unecessary paragraph shouldn't be removed. Soxwon (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because you have company doesn't mean there is a consensus. Several editors have reinstated the Thesis section when it was deleted, and two authors in this section (so far) favor retention. --Zeamays (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking of the whole section being deleted, merely trimmed. I'm not sure what is giving you the impression I want the whole thing deleted. Soxwon (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Soxwon. It seems a bit odd that the Thesis section is longer than the Attorney General section. Just because it's currently in the news doesn't mean it warrants larger coverage here. Support reducing the size of the section (I'm glad the quote to the original material is there; that is appropriate).editface (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you look at George Allen and many others, their running for office when there has been major controversy has made their running for election bigger than their office they held when there was no controversy. If his thesis had come out when he ran for AG I am sure it would have been as big or bigger since his win was only 300 or so votes. It would have been a deciding factor which it may be in this Gov race where he has gone from an easy win to now only leading by a small single digit lead. So as far as size this is not differnet then many other articles that have been agreed to and been up for a long time at Wiki. --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring WP:CCC and WP:UNDUE is WP:UNDUE no matter how you try to spin it. Does it cover more than the rest of his life, than the rest of his campaign? It's already fallen off of the national media radar, there's ample evidence to show the change is from VA simply being a swing state, and the campaigns are moving to other issues. It should be brought to a proper size, rather than bloated to push a POV. Soxwon (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the specific sentence of WP:UNDUE which Soxwon is referring to. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."editface (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I live in VA and this has not fallen off. It is still the main topic and the person running against him is running ads with this part ad the main issue. You can try and spin it anyway you like but this has been gone over when others tried to delate it. Your BIAS as always shows through sox. --Marlin1975 (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I also live in VA, the scene has shifted to energy debates. Again, I can also show evidence of the effects being from other sources, rather than the thesis. Remember, VA is deep purple, the lead that McDonnell held was a bit unnatural to begin with, the thesis merely rallied democrats, it didn't sway voters: [2] "thesis not important," [3], "The poll indicates that news reports of a socially conservative college thesis McDonnell wrote in 1989 has not been fatal to his campaign, but it has helped rally Democrats behind Deeds...Among those who knew of the thesis, 63 percent said it did not affect their regard for McDonnell 31 percent said it diminished him in their eyes, and 5 percent said they liked him even more because of it. But three-fourths of those who they viewed McDonnell less favorably were Democrats.", [4]. It has been a nice rallying point for Deeds, but isn't the major turning point. It should therefore be trimmed to meet this outlook. Also, please comment on content, not contributor. Bad Faith accusations don't help the editing process. Soxwon (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As a Democrat active in the party, I can say with certainty that this is still very much an important issue. As recently as September 29th it has been the most central part of meeting discussions. I will speak for the democratic party and say that a very large portion of our strategy in the upcoming weeks is based on publicizing this thesis and informing people about the views espoused therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.4.176 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thesis section doesn't explain controversy

The section about the thesis doesn't actually tell me what is controversial in it.

Currently our coverage merely states that the thesis espoused "opposition to abortion and support for covenant marriage, school vouchers, and tax policies that favor heterosexual families." None of these are particularly controversial for southern republican politics, nor are they positions he has "grown out of". Since we know the thesis is controversial as compared with the campaign, and since we know McDonnell has grown out of some of the parts of the thesis, it's obvious the current wording isn't telling the whole story.

Not to say it's intentional-- everything gets confusing when there's lot of editing. But, the centerpiece of the whole section is missing. What was in the thesis that may influence the campaign?

--Alecmconroy (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed this section:

In his thesis he also wrote that the "new trend of working women and feminists" was "detrimental to the family," he criticized Griswold v. Connecticut for "attempting to create a view of liberty based on radical individualism, while facilitating statist control of select family issues," and described the Eisenstadt v. Baird holding as "illogical." On page 20, he wrote, "man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter."

as being too detailed. It was not covered in any article, and the article's significance is disputed. What many argue is that the piece simply gave Deeds the catalyst to rally the blue base that he has been searching for. McDonnell's lead was unnatural in a state as close as Virginia, he was going to lose it eventually. Soxwon (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a pretty dense summary, referencing two court cases but not explaining them, listing the physical page number of the original paper printing, etc. I'll try to rewrite/polish. There's plenty of room for improvement, it's just that there has to be something that fills the role of summarizing the controversy-- otherwise the next rebuttal paragraph winds up looking psychotic. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored some material one editor deleted for reasons I find unconvincing. This material presents the opposition (Democratic) viewpoint, so it deserves to be included, regardless of when the events occurred. Kane was Governor at the time, so his views has weight. The Washington Post is considered a reliable source. Thus both of the editors objections are slanted. --Zeamays (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC):

Zeamays, assume good faith, please. The reasons for deletion were stated in brief, but perhaps they weren't stated clearly enough.

Here's the material: "Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, a supporter of McDonnell's Democratic opponent, state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, responded that McDonnell has since made more than one intervention concerning sexual orientation. Kaine pointed to the fact that McDonnell advocated a state constitutional amendment requiring that marriage can occur only between a man and a woman, and intervened to oppose Kaine's first act as governor in 2006, to expand the state's nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation." Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain the reason for the deletion clearly: the rationale is not that this material shouldn't be included, but this information was taken directly from an article which was written in 2009 about a different event which occurred in 2003 and which only mentioned these 2006 events in passing. By all means, include this material -- it just needs a better source. The Washington post is just fine; and I agree that Kain's view has legitimacy. However, if the McDonnell page is going to reference particular, significant actions taken by McDonnell, surely there's a concurrent source for each of those actions, not just a quote from an article three years later on a different topic in which a biased spectator mentions it in passing. If there's another source for the above material, I'll happily agree that it should be included in some form. I'll leave it for now and re-delete in a day or two if there is not a response here or the addition of another source. Still think this section should be trimmed (in general) or more material added elsewhere, as this is featured larger than many more substantive topics.Jonschr (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"tax policies that favor heterosexual families."

An earlier version of the thesis section which mentioned "tax policies that favor heterosexual families, and discrimination against 'cohabitators, homosexuals [and] fornicators.'"

An editor pointed out, correctly I think, that 'discrimination' is a loaded term with legal connotations that seems out of place. Also important to note, the thesis endorses tax policies that promote "heterosexual married families", a major point of the thesis in fact.

I do however think it is important to mention that the thesis makes a social point, rather than merely one about tax structure or government revenue. There are any of number of reasons why one might choose a given tax structure-- the thesis argues there is a compelling societal interest in promoting married heterosexual one-working-parent/one-homemaker-parent families. The thesis presents multiple points to support this argument. It cites social science evidence, it makes appeal to both American and judeo-christian cultural norms, and it presents a religious/moral argument as well.

I don't think this is a particularly controversial summary of this aspect of the Thesis's content. To colloquially paraphrase-- traditional families are good, and societal institutions should try to promote and encourage the formation and maintenance of traditional families.

"discriminate" isn't a good word to use to summarize this. I have proposed:

"supports [...] tax policies that promote heterosexual married families over households often considered morally question in judeo-christian ethics, referred to in the thesis as "cohabitators, homosexuals [and] fornicators."

But that's inelegant to say the least. Any improvements that still manage to convey the same essential information? --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"supports [...] tax policies that promote heterosexual married families over other households, including households referred to in the thesis as "cohabitators, homosexuals [and] fornicators." (for the sake of simplicity, although it doesn't quite get in all the information from the above version). Jonschr (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How about, "supports state sanctioned bigotry against anybody who opposes white, male, heterosexual, upperclass dominance." -Drew Dabney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.34.51 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC) — 98.219.34.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Political positions

Most politicians have a "Political Positions" sections that outlines their history and stances on different issues. (confer Deeds' article, for example). With all the focus that's been directed toward the thesis bruhaha, it seems like we're missing a topical presentation of McDonnell on the issues. Please ignore or improve any stylistic mess as I assemble one. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you've started. I looked at the issues section and wondered: should some of these be placed into the political positions category? Obviously, most of the issues are local in scope and timeframe, and I think that those likely should remain where they are. However, I think energy, at a minimum, is a candidate for the new section.Jonschr (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ack! yes, I've gotten sidetracked by meta issues, so please jump in with your best judgment. :) My main criteria is to list a sort of compare and contrast with whoever McDonnell is running against in terms of highly verifiable differences in their positions. If a resident of South Carolina came to wikipedia wanting to know the top ten differences between McDonnell and his opponent, what would we tell them?

(Although we don't have to be too focused on the actual election, the main thing is just to prune out generic "I support peace and motherhood" sorts of positions and list the most salient positions that define McDonnell when compared with other politicians in his time and place). --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

article is a typical Wikipedia sophomoric mess

Length of sections does not correspond to their signifance. There is argumentation buried in the text and of the most obvious and juvinile type. Don't the high school students of the Commonwealth have something useful to do? Sheesh. Just step back and look at this article and imagine it was paid content created for Britannica. Uck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cal Thomas Interview

There is a Cal Thomas interview on the internet, whnich I am adding to the article's external links section: Interview with Governor-Elect Bob McDonnell by Cal Thomas. Asteriks (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

INFOBOX

Does anybody know how to insert the Lieutenant Governor into Governor McDonnell's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

New Article///overhaul

I feel like this article overwhelmingly addresses McDonnell's campaign for governor. Although it should be mentioned, perhaps the sections such as Thesis, Issues, Endorsements, and Financial Contributions should be made into either a single article pertaining to the Governor or placed into the VA Gubernatorial 2009 race article.

In addition, I think a political views section should be added, and that a governor section should be created.

Do you agree?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbies2591 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree 71.218.154.176 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thesis or LGBT heading?

I think the best way to organize the issues of the thesis and LGBT are under the bigger heading of LGBT rights, because I don't think that "Thesis" is an issue, and it pretty much falls under LGBT issues. Steelersfan7roe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Wording

"He also reversed former governor Kaine's first act as governor in 2006" I've been thinking about this phrase; he didn't actually reverse anything. Each governor signs executive orders that generally expire with their term. To say that McDonnell reversed Kaine's order is not accurate; rather, he created his own that omits an area. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"McDonnell reversed his position"

McDonnell never reversed his position. From the onset, he's always said that issuing such an executive order is unconstitutional, but that employees of his administration would be selected based on merit alone. He simply reaffirmed both his legal opinion and his stance on non-discrimination in the work place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I'm intending on starting a major overhaul of this article. There is obvious bias from both sides of the aisle in this article. In addition, the article is very unorganized; it simply does not flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.241.212 (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Controversies and Criticism section

Ok, apparently people do not read. The material SHOULD GO IN, just NOT IN A CONTROVERSY SECTION. Add the material to appropriate places in the article, NOT IN A CRITICISM OR CONTROVERSY SECTION
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see no reason for the repeated insertion of a Controversies and criticism section, as all these issues are better placed either in the section on the Gubernatorial race (the Thesis) or the section on his governorship (offshore drilling, concealed carry, virtual schools, gay rights). Some repeated insertions have been unacceptably lacking in NPOV, but if they are presented in a balanced manner, they belong in the article. Plazak (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I strongly agree. Generally controversy sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Integrating information into relevent sections is better. Boromir123 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Boromirl after checking your contributions to wikipedia I believe that your opinion is bias and invalid, considering your contributions to "republican" articles only. Disagree with the last statement. After looking back at the former governors of Virginia (Gilmore, Warner, and Kaine), I noticed that they do not contain controversy and criticism sections, despite the fact that many criticize their actions as well. Why should McDonnell have one, when they do not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.241.212 (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Probably because they weren't involved in any. Also there are other politicians on wikipedia with controversial sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.101.122 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) To say that they "weren't involved in any" is very myopic. Each and every politician has one side of the aisle that views them with controversy and criticism. In my opinion, the only unbiased way of drafting it into a Wikipedia Article must be something as controversial as the George Allen racism incident, where both sides of the aisle had people who viewed it in a negative light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.241.212 (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC) And that is just what it is, your "opinion". There is no harm in having a section based on controversies and criticism for Bob McDonnell when such controversies and criticism exists. People get to see both sides of the man in the article and you are being bias when you decide to show only the side that YOU want and omit any negative things he has done or been criticized of doing.70.160.101.122 (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I too stand opposed to the proposed section. - Schrandit (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Agreed, no reason to lump it all into one section, better to place it in appropriate places throughout the article. Soxwon (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Controversies and Criticism section is fine with me, so lon as the information is accurate. McDonnell never reversed his position re: homosexuals in the workplace. From the onset, he's always said that issuing such an executive order as Kaine did is unconstitutional, but that employees of his administration would be selected based on merit alone. He simply reaffirmed both his legal opinion and his stance on non-discrimination in the work place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I strongly disagree that the section be removed. Plazak, Boromir123, and Soxwon I have tried to stay out of this debate because your opinions are obviously bias and the fact that all three of you would remove the section and then choose to debate about it already supports this fact. Plazak, the section was not lacking in a NPOV, the whole article simply gave both sides to Bob McDonnell's life, both good and bad. Boromir123, there are plenty of other controversial sections out there on Wikipedia for governors outside of Virginia, former and in office. Soxwon, I could agree with you on that had a majority of the sections under it not been removed, including by you. Wikipedia is not Faux News, so the articles in it should not be one-sided as the supporters of removing it would like it to be.Galraedia (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC) So disagreeing with your position and debating it shows that we are inherently biased? This is wikipedia, you to reach concensus for your edits rather than slinging accusations of bias. Soxwon (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC) You can bluster all you want, Galraedia, but that will not get you your separate Controversies and criticisms section. However, I think that everyone here agrees that the issues to which you want to draw attention should be included in the appropriate places in the article, as long as they are presented in an NPOV manner. Do you really believe that no one in Virginia supports the concealed carry and virtual schools initiatives (as your additions would imply)? Include some balance, and you could get much of what you awant, and help improve the article. Plazak (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Palzak, what I will and will not get is not up to you. If you weren't so incapable of reading you would see that the additions did not imply that everyone is against it, it merely showed that there was controversy regarding it. And speaking of implying, you seem to think that everyone agrees with you but clearly that is not the case considering some of the comments made by another user on this very page. Also, if you're going to decide to debate about it you shouldn't remove it and then whine about it, because we are clearly not all in agreement with you. And Soxwon, I never said that you were biased for disagreeing with me, I believe you are bias because you would like only one side to be shown.Galraedia (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No, I stated that the material in question should be placed in appropriate sections throughout the article, not in a controversy section. Plazak has stated that the material in question should be added. And where is this we? I see no registered users taking up your side and random IPs popping in for agreement is hardly concensus. Soxwon (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Soxwon read comments made by IPs 173.53.60.89 and 70.160.101.122 if you can indeed read at all. The fact that you have blindly excluded these people's comments only further proves my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galraedia (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Just some info on McDonnell's long-time stance on workplace discrimination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRZ5hwIzu9Q&feature=related While the video's poster is very anti-McDonnell, it demonstrates that even before governor, his position was to not sign an unconstitutional executive order, but to also not discriminate based on any irrational factors--hence not signing the same executive order as Kaine, but instead issuing an executive directive prohibitng those under him from discriminating based on sexual orientation. While on the subject, I'd also like to point out the obvious bias in one of the sources used, http://www.personalliberty.com/news/governor-bob-mcdonnell-reverses-stance-on-gay-discrimination-amid-growing-uproar-19667530/ Not only s it one-sided, but it is also factually inaccurate for the reasons mentioned above, as well as other details. For example, Gov. Warner's executive order: http://wayback.archive-it.org/190/20050919170933/http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Executive_Orders/html/EO_01.html It did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, (unless of course there was a later executive order; but as it reads, Kaine's order rescinded Warner's executive Order 1, which leads me to believe that no other similar order was executed). Such bias and inaccurate sources should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 173.53.60.89 the executive order you have used as a source says nothing about the anti-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation that were put in place by former governor Mark Warner. Bob McDonnell never carried those policies over in his first executive order made on February 5th 2010. However, he lied about his position on discrimination, as the video you have shown seems to indicate, and has even received criticism for it from the Daily show in a segment called Gaywatch - Virginia Edition. Personally, I find this video to be more entertaining, http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/gaywatch---virginia-edition If you'd like more sources then view the following: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/mcdonnell-edict-dont-discriminate-against-gays http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/from-mcdonnell-a-turn-on-sexual-orientation/37323/ I also find if very funny that you consider one of my sources as being bias because the source just happens to come from a conservative web site :) 173.53.60.89, I also noticed that the only contributions you have made to Wikipedia have been on the Bob McDonnell page, so it is ironic that you would call my sources "inaccurate" or "bias" when you are indeed looking suspicious. The "Gay Worker Protections" section I made was represented in a NPOV manner and is in fact controversial because it led to Ken Cuccinelli sending a letter to public colleges in which he stated that they had no right to impose their own bans as only state legislature can extend such protections. Only after receiving criticism for not carrying over the anti-discrimination policies of the former governors of Virginia did he issued an "executive directive", which mentions sexual orientation. (Note: the executive order -- which carries more force -- still doesn't include sexual orientation, but McDonnell's directive instructs the state to treat it as if it did.) You can find the executive order here, http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Executive%20Directive%20One.pdf Since the issue seems to be about the 'Controversies and Criticism' section itself and not the information contained within it, I will agree to reach a consensus as long as the information that was previously in that section is not removed.Galraedia (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Galraedia, the executive order you have used as a source says nothing about the anti-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation that were put in place by former governor Mark Warner. That's because there was no anti-discrimination policy based on sexual orientation that were put in place by former governor Mark Warner, at least not that I can find. Feel free to look yourself, but I believe that was the purpose of the previous comment. However, he lied about his position on discrimination As the video indicates, he never lied about his position. Could you please provide a reliable source that indicates otherwise? as the video you have shown seems to indicate That seems to be your personal opinion, meaning that you've come into this discussion with a bias against McDonnell. and has even received criticism for it from the Daily show in a segment called Gaywatch The Daily show isn't a reliable source . Additionally, the clip showed by Jon Stewart is a segment of the same debate--by watching both, you can certainly see where it was edited to fit comedy central's agenda of creating comedy. I also noticed that the only contributions you have made to Wikipedia have been on the Bob McDonnell page, so it is ironic that you would call my sources "inaccurate" or "bias" when you are indeed looking suspicious. It's not suspicious for an individual to take an interest in an article, especially when first starting out. Combine this with the same contributor only adjusting the same content to clarify McDonnell's view--specifically that signing the same executive order as kaine would be unconstitutional, but--as evident in the debate video--he has always been against irrational discrimination. That is the view that McDonnell has always taken, that is the view that is being shown. Your insisting otherwise without reliable sources is obvious bias. he "Gay Worker Protections" section I made was represented in a NPOV manner and is in fact controversial because it led to Ken Cuccinelli sending a letter to public colleges in which he stated that they had no right to impose their own bans as only state legislature can extend such protections. Are the actions taken by one person that led to the independent actions of another person that are now irrelevant really encyclopedia-worthy? Or is it simply a blip on the news that has since (or will soon) disappear from public memory? You are obviously biased against McDonnell. Your insistence on this section remaining factually inaccurate is evidence of that fact. But with any criticisms and controversies section, there will undoubtedly be bias. For this reason, I am against such a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.71.62 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 173.53.60.89 Galraedia is actually right and you can find other sources that support his statement at the following: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601908.html http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-02-28/news/dp-op_gay_0228feb28_1_virginia-senate-sexual-orientation-discrimination http://www.mytimesdispatch.com/index.php/virginiapolitics/mcdonnell_asked_to_send_down_anti-sex_descrimination_bill/ McDonnell, who served as attorney general prior to becoming governor, determined in 2006 that an executive order by then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine barring sexual orientation discrimination was unconstitutional because the General Assembly had not authorized it. Unlike his immediate two predecessors as governor, Mark R. Warner and Kaine, McDonnell did not issue an executive order specifically barring sex discrimination.70.160.101.122 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to State of the Union

If one believes that McDonnell's delivery of the Republican response to the State of the Union speach should be included, then documented facts surrounding the "staging" of that speach should be included in the article. Several reliable sources raised the problem that the House Chamber was not authorized in a manner specified in House Rule 82. This fact, together with proper references has been deleted three times by User:Soxwon on the grounds that Governor McDonnell (the former member of the House of Delegates and the former Attorney General) should not be expected to know the House Rules governing the use of the House Chamber. The controversy is relevant to an even-handed discussion of the State of the Union address. If Soxwon wants to add another sentence with a sourced statement as to why McDonnell and the Republicans are free to ignore the rules, they can try, but he can't just delete the discussion of Rule 82. Racepacket (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don;t know if I'd call the Style article "reliable." The way its written, it's certainly very partisan and one-sided. I'd say the same about the Post article, but at least Anita pretends to look at both sides. And looking at the Post article, your statement, "the use of House chamber for McDonnell's speach [sic] did not comply with House Rule 82" is not what the source says. Rather, the Post says "House Speaker William J. Howell appeared to have broken his chamber's own rules." According to the Anita Kumar's legal analysis, the rule may have been broken. However, Howell, the arbitrator of the rules, believes that the speech was not in violation. It may be a gray area, but to say definitively that the rule was broken is simply not accurate. Either way, I don't see why this needs to be included in the article; McDonnell requested permission from the individual authorized to grant him permission, meaning if there was any error, it was on the part of Howell. I say leave it, and Armstrong's quote, out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.71.62 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your observations. However, Rule 82 does not give the Speaker the power to grant permission during the legislative session. The House Rules are adopted and amended in a public process involving both parties, and the Rules require a vote of the full House or its rules Committee (again in a public process involving both parties). Whether the Speaker and the Governor, or their aides, made a "back room" agreement to use the House Chamber, it was not done in a public process involving both parties. The sentence is now awkwardly worded in the passive voice to meet the earlier concern that the text was attributing this to McDonnell. The controversy is covered in a number of secondary sources, and the response drew criticism in the media such as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report mocking how McDonnell tried so hard to immitate the trappings of a real State of the Union address. NPOV would require that if we discuss McDonnell's response to the SOTU in this article, we should also discuss its sequella. Racepacket (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of non-editorial article given was the Speaker, not the governor and it was HE that broke the rules by allowing McDonnell to deliver the speech. Soxwon (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that User:Boromir123 and perhaps User:Soxwon may be overlooking the fact that the legislative session started the first week of January, so under Rule 82, a vote of either the Rules Committee or the Full House was required. By definition, the Speaker did not have the power to give permission, because it was in the middle of the session. Again, the question is not whether McDonnell or his aides or the Speaker or his aides made a mistake. The point is that instead of an open on-the-record debate and vote on whether this is an appropriate use of the House chamber, it was done by a "back room" deal with all Democrats excluded from participation. I can see the article presenting both sides, but neither McDonnell or other Republicans have made the argument advanced by Boromir123. Racepacket (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the ironic claim of backroom deals without Democrats (just how did the Health Care bill go down? Hmm). This has really nothing to do with McDonnell. I reworded to a more neutral form, but it really doesn't belong as a controversial issue directed in any way to McDonnell. Arzel (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To Arzel: the Health Care bill came up for a vote in each chamber, and the Republicans had a chance to vote against it. Here, the planners knew that using the House Chamber to try to stage a mini-SOTU would be controversial and failed to bring it to a vote, as required by Rule 82. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reference that it "has really nothing to do with McDonnell." Several sources suggested that McDonnell tried to replicate the surroundings of the State of the Union Address, including having his office issue a press release stating that an active duty military member would be behind McDonnell while he delivered his response wearing a Class A Army uniform, which violates DOD policies on attending a political event in uniform. The current sentence avoids pointing blame on specific individuals. But McDonnell and his staff were responsible for organizing a Republican response that complies with all applicable laws and rules, and there are many sources which noted how corners were cut when the mini-SOTU was staged. Racepacket (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Negative fallacy, how about you prove that he intentially tried to break house rules. Arzel (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording. Either (a) the speech was in violation of House Rule 82, or (b) it wasn't. If it is not clear that it was, the new wording should remain, or the sentence left out entirely. If it was in violation, then the GA did not feel such a violation was important enough to address, so it probably isn't important enough be addressed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are no sources claiming that it complied with House Rule 82 and several sources noting that it did not comply. House Rule 82 requires a vote by either the full House or the House Rules Committee. Neither occurred. The "importance", notabiilty or relevance of the controversy does not depend on whether the House Democrats had enough votes to bring a disciplinary action to a floor vote. IP 173.53.60.89 is applying the wrong standards on when something should be worded as debatable and when topics shouild be excluded from the article. Racepacket (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how it is addressed, we must be clear not to implicate that McDonnell did anything intentially against the Virginia House rules. I removed the section for now because of BLP violations as it implied that he did something wrong, when that has not been shown to be true. Arzel (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Boromir123's edit seeks to attribute the Rule 82 violation to just "critics" of McDonnell. However, McDonnell and his staff do not claim that Rule 82 was satisfied. I have not found any sources that suggest that the Rule 82 violation is in dispute -- neither the full House nor the Rules Committee voted to authorize the use of the House Chamber for McDonnell's reply to the State of the Union. Racepacket (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article show that "the rule 82 violation is in dispute." It reads "Howell said he had the authority to allow McDonnell to use the chamber because the speech took place after 10 p.m. when the House had already adjourned for the day." Essentially its one party in the GA saying he didn't violate the rule, the other party (the critics) saying the opposite, and McDonnell doing what he was told he could do. --— 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't see it. Everyone agrees that Rule 82 required either a vote of the House or the House Rules Committee. Nobody claims that such a vote occurred. There are a number of laws and rules which apply while the House is in session. For example, House members cannot accept campaign contributions during the session. That does not mean that they can accept donations at 10 p.m. after the House "adjourned for the day." The session is defined by the Virginia Constitution, Article IV Section 6. It appears that Mr. Howell was joking. Racepacket (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"It appears that Mr. Howell was joking." Seriously? What part of "Howell said he had the authority to allow McDonnell to use the chamber because the speech took place after 10 p.m. when the House had already adjourned for the day" appears to be a joke to you? Regardless of your unfounded opinion, the following is true:

(1) The sources cited in the article show that "the rule 82 violation is in dispute."

(2) Your own interpretation of the rule is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to the article are the sources. Because the sources cite two sides to the argument, and because neither side has negated their opposition's argument, both sides should be presented in the article, or neither. . .which brings me to

(3) The democrat haven't mentioned anything about this since the Wapo article was written. The republicans haven't mentioned anything about this since the Wapo article was written. McDonnell and his administration haven't mentioned anything about this since the Wapo article was written. The media, as far as I can tell, hasn't mentioned anything about this since the Wapo article was written. No one cares. Its not significant enough to include in the article. In fact, as far as I can tell, Racepacket is the only person in the entire world still thinking about how the speaker of the va House of Delegates may or may not have violated a rule when he allowed McDonnell to use the chamber.

(4) I'd like to see if there's a consensus for removing the sentence in question. — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

McDonnell and his staff have not commented on the matter one way or the other, either before or after the Washington Post article. Because of the Virignia Constitution defining the session to be a multi-day period, (during which a number of restrictions apply, including a prohibition on political campaign donations and the requirement of a vote on the use of the House chamber), the "after 10 p.m. argument" was not said in seriousness, but rather a humorous response to Kumar's question. It is as if a reporter asked you, "how many days in a leap year?" and you responded "Leap years do not apply after 10 p.m." Racepacket (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in your argument. The section in question is not a direct quote from Howell, so we can't derive tone that would indicate a sarcastic or joking comment. Kumar did not say that Howell was joking. The source states, "Howell said he had the authority to allow McDonnell to use the chamber because the speech took place after 10 p.m. when the House had already adjourned for the day." Howell may have been mistaken in his own interpretation of his authority as Speaker, but I don't see how you can say he was joking. There is no evidence to back that assumpiton, outside of your "what he did was wrong-->he couldn't have been serious because-->what he did was wrong" circular logic. How about addressing the other arguments as well? — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I can see the source of your confusion -- we need to focus on the difference between adjourning for the evening and adjourning sine die to end the session. The session continued for 60 legislative days on a 24/7 basis. The prohibition against campaign donations during the session as well as Rule 82 applied on a 24/7 basis. Many public figures try to diffuse tough questions from the press with humor. If Howell believed that the session had ended before 10 p.m. on January 27, why did he bother to come to the chamber in February and March? Racepacket (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is not our job to interpret the rule--we simply report the facts. While your rationale is certainly logical, all we know about Speaker Howell's thinking is what is reported in the source. My guess is he assumed the rule meant the house adjourning for the day, not the session. Regardless, looking back at this topic, it appears that the majority of users are for deletion. Please don't revert the deletion until a consensus is reached to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree that we should report the facts. The word "adjourn" does to appear in Rule 82. The word "session" is defined in the Virginia Constitution, and every legislator is familiar with it because fundraising is prohibited during the session. Please do not delete the sentence until consensus is reached. Racepacket (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the two questions relevant to this discussion are: (a) Was the speaker in violation of the rule according to his interpretation of his authority as speaker and (b) if so, does it have enough significance to the subject of the article to be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Coming here from the WP:3O board. This involves a disagreement with more than two editors; thus WP:3O is not a dispute resolution step. I suggest you go on to WP:RFC if resolution cannot be made on your own. WCityMike 04:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

User:Arzel has removed portions on this article on the grounds that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. However, the Washington Post is widely respected for its journalism and has repeatedly been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Please stop deleting material that is sourced to the Washington Post. If Arzel "can't find" the Washington Post, I suggest either purchase a subscription or take a trip to the local library. Racepacket (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Arzel has removed portions of this article on the grounds that the Washington Post is not available to him. Again, it is available in many libraries in Virginia. Wikipedia allows citation to printed materials, and encourages such citations. Racepacket (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I searched for that specific phrase and was unable to find it anywhere on their site. Now I don't know exactly where and when it occurred, but it should be easily accessible if it was from a major newspaper. Also, much of that is already from a secondary source, therefore the WAPO is not needed. Arzel (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss before making substantive changes

Racepacket, it appears that you are acting against the group of editors trying to eliminate POV, and information added with the intent of reflecting poorly on McDonnell. I say this because you act alone, despite consensuses, and without addressing the concerns the other editors have. We make adjustments, explain why we make adjustments, and watch as you revert our edits without describing your view (with the exception of a few issues we've discussed on here). I'd like to hear what yo have to say about the following:

-See the above section. I made this comment regarding the introductory paragraph. The next day, you added that very phrase elsewhere in the article. It appears, based on your actions of not only ignoring the argument for the intro, but going the extra step to repeat the questionable phrase, that you are simply being immature and petty. Please address. -Another editor has questioned why Regent University's mission statement is relevant to McDonnell. Do you make sure to include it in all Regent alumni's pages, or just the Governor's? Please address.

-You continue to revert my edit under the executive order section. You keep using the phrase "McDonnell previously tried to attack" Kaine's order. The phrase "tried to attack" is not appropriate. under his authority as Attorney General, McDonnell issued an opinion as to the constitutionality of the order. You make it sound personal. Please address.

-In the same section, you've removed the additions I've included to clarify McDonnell's opinion and demonstrate his longstanding belief that no person should be discriminated against for irrational reasons. We can all see that you like highlighting the negative opinions of McDonnell, but there are two sides to every issue. I'm more than happy to discuss ways in which we can demonstrate both sides, but deleting one and keeping the other is not the way to go about it. Please address.

I ask that you not make any more edits to this article until these issues are addressed in full, and you agree to seek common ground, rather than pursuing your own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• In response to173.53.60.89's first point, personal attacks on editors by SPAs are not productive. In response to his second point, a major turning point in McDonnell's career was the decision to leave business and enroll in a joint program in both law and public policy where he wrote a thesis which later gained widespread public attention. Adding a statement to explain his selection of that program and the nature of that program provides background to the reader to later understand the discussion of the thesis. If we were writing a biography of a person whose thesis did not repeatedly make the front page of the Washington Post I would agree that a description of the program would be too much detail, but here McDonnelll's thesis was the roadmap to his political agenda and was a major point of discussion in the 2009 campaign. As to your thrid point, because Virginia elects the Attorney General separately from the Governor, it is possible that they are from different political parties. Hence, it was widely viewed that McDonnell took a number of steps to attack or undercut the Kaine administration prior to his resignation from the AG post. I think that the article would benefit from more involvement by a large number of experience editors and ask that SPAs step back from it for a while. Admittedly, it needs a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Personal attacks on editors by SPAs are not productive." Nevertheless, Racepacket has not explained the sudden inclusion of the phrase.

"Adding a statement to explain his selection of that program" Is there a source that explains McDonnell's motivation for selecting Regent? Was it the mission statement, or the convenience of a close-to-home dual degree program?

"McDonnelll's thesis was the roadmap to his political agenda" According to the negative point of view.

"it was widely viewed that McDonnell took a number of steps to attack or undercut the Kaine administration" Again, according to the negative point of view.

"Admittedly, it needs a lot of work." Yes. And the work needs to begin with establishing a neutral point of view. For any user to simply highlight the criticisms of an individual violates the NPOV rule.

Racepacket, please describe how you have been abiding by the NPOV rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Still waiting for a response. Racepacket, please describe how you have been abiding by the NPOV rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lead Section

As noted above, there are substantial gaps in the lead section of this article. Let's try to develop a new one to replace the current one. I would propose:

Robert Francis "Bob" McDonnell (born June 15, 1954) is the 71st and current Governor of Virginia and a former lieutenant colonel in the United States Army. McDonnell served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1993-2005 and then for three years as Attorney General. After campaigning as a centrist focusing on job creation, on November 3, 2010, McDonnell was elected as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia by a seventeen point margin in the 2009 general election. McDonnell was inaugurated on January 16, 2010 on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol and succeeded Tim Kaine. Since taking office, McDonnell has implemented a far-ranging reduction in state government services.

Again, this is one possible summary, and I would welcome the feedback of others. Racepacket (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "campaigning as a centrist" add? Where is this discussed in the body of the article? Why do feel it important to add this leading comment? Arzel (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It summarizes about seven paragraphs of the article. What is your objection to it? Racepacket (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My objection (as stated above): While I can see why some would conclude that McDonnell campaigned as a centrist, I would argue that he campaigned as a pragmatist. He purposely avoided social issues and focused on jobs and the economy. Had he confronted social issues and took neither a left nor right side, he could be considered a centrist. But because the issues he addressed (with the exception of some, which he took the conservative side on), were bipartisan concerns (not to be confused with centrist, as the bipartisan concerns transcended party--and by definition, centrist lines), the term centrist is not accurate. That said, I know a lot of political "talking heads" will not concern themselves with definitional issues like this, and refer to McDonnell as a centrist; so I'd like to hear discussion on the topic. Centrist? Pragmatist? Something else-ist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My objection is that the body of the article does not talk about him campaiging as a "centrist". If you are summarizing his positions than you are performing original research in the definition of what those positions represent. To be more succinct, who is saying that he campaigned as a "centrist"?

Direct quotations from the McDonnell thesis

How should these quotations be used in the article?

• page 12: “Radical contemporary attempts at redefinition of family eliminate the requirement for legal relationships, as observed in the National Organization for Women’s (NOW) concept of family as ‘people that are living together with deep commitment and with mutual needs and sharing.’“ (Related footnote 50 (page 73): “The obvious implication is that a family is anybody living together, including homosexuals, lesbians, or other arrangements where a ‘deep commitment’ exists.”)
• page 13: “Single life and other households of relatives or friends living together must be regarded as a proper exercise of liberty, but there is no requirement that government promulgate policies which treat alternative lifestyle living arrangements equally with the preferred traditional family.”
• page 20: “However, man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter.”
• page 33: “The [Family Protection Act of 1981] provided for a variety of traditional family support measures such as a restriction of federal funds for abortion, a restraint of federal interference with state statutes pertaining to child abuse, a redefinition of abuse to exclude parental spanking, and a prohibition of funds for homosexual legal services and other anti-family activities. The act incorporates sound principles of federalism and self-government, while refusing to acknowledge homosexuality and abortion as acceptable behaviors and actions.”
• page 58: “The family impact statement is a strong recommendation which at the least will inject family concerns into the policy debate, and at most will facilitate principled legislation that encourages traditional families, and discourages or sanctions alternate lifestyles and anti-family behaviors.”
• page 65: “For example, every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals, or fornicators. The cost of sin should fall on the sinner not the taxpayer.”
• pages 66-67: “Fight any attempts to redefine family by allowing special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers.”
• page 67: "The giftedness of the Republican philosophy is that it embraces the talents and worth of all peoples, while Democrats seek to shepherd a nation of powerless incompetents."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/McDonnell_thesis_082909.pdf?sid=ST2009082902758

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robapalooza (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

Seeing as the majority of the page was devoted to controversial areas, I've included a lot of information about McDonnell's work as governor. As most of the information came from his press releases, I've tried to "neutralize" the wording, but feel free to discuss and make adjustments as necessary. Also, as you can see, there is potentially too much information. Let's look through it and discuss what should be included and what should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I have major concerns about a Special Purpose Account undertaking a major rewrite of this article. Perhaps IP 173.53.60.89 should step aside and let more experienced editors work on this. Racepacket (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By nature, every editor on WP was initially a Single Purpose Account, so don't WP:BITE. Arzel (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By definition every editor's first edit was on only one article, but 34 edits over three months all on the Bob McDonnell article is a definite pattern. Racepacket (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the editor. That said, the substantial use of press releases is a NPOV violation. Focus on specific sections that you have problems with and present suggestions and/or improvements to those sections. But don't make wholesale changes based off his press releases, WP is not here to serve as his mouthpiece. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. (We got into an edit conflict over fixing 173.53.60.89's edits) However, I do not believe that the cabinet should be in the article unless there was something notable about the cabinet appointment. For example, a statement that the Governor made a special diversity effort, or if some of his appointments were rejected. (One appointee withdrew after ethical and confilct of interest concerns were raised by the General Assembly.) There is coverage already at: Government of Virginia and we don't need to duplcate that here. Again, writing a biographic article about any leader is a tricky balance between writing about the person and his background vs. writing about the organization he leads. Racepacket (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the cabinent. Removed per Duplicative. Arzel (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the press releases can be POV. I added the cabinet while modeling this article after the Tim Kaine; but I can see how that is certainly duplicative, at least until McDonnell is out of office. I guess we can take additions one at a time. I'll post here first and ask for comments. The first changes I'd like to see involves a bit more organization--headings and sub headings. What are your thoughts?

Also, along with the felons rights, how does this look?: Prisoner Re-entry On May 11, 2010, McDonnell announced his initiatives to strengthen the prisoner re-entry program in Virginia, thus increasing safety in communities and neighborhoods and lessening the chances of recidivism. As a part of this initiative, the Governor issued Executive Order #11 that establishes the Virginia Prisoner and Juvenile Offender Re-Entry Council, with the intent to promote collaborative re-entry strategies for adult and juvenile offenders. The Governor also signed two pieces of public safety legislation which will divert non-violent offenders from incarceration and assist prisoners in working off court costs accrued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It would look better if it were not a political view. The recent additions include editorialization of the intiatives and are being presented for political reasons. Stick with NPOV presentations or don't include at all. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the new version and let me know how it looks. I assume you've reverted the headings only because you reverted all of the edits, correct? Or is there an issue with them I'm unaware of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yeah, the headings, in my view, are fine. The other addition reads very neutral, just the facts without any opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Headings such as "Public Safety" are loaded with politcal bias. Racepacket (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While the term "public safety" refers to issues that fall under the public safety secretariat within the governor's administration, i can see where an uninformed reader might take issue. I ask, however, that in the future you simply edit or remove the potentially offending heading, rather than reverting all heading edits. Its better for us to collaborate and change as needed than to start from scratch each time something doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've just deleted a section. Per this article http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/MCDO21_20100520-222604/345983/ , it seems outdated and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

After further conideration, I may have been to hasty in deeleting the section. We should probably rewrite it, inclduding the new information, but taking precautions to not give the controversy undue weight. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Seeing no comments, I'v e rewritten the section to reflect new information. If there are any issues, please let me know (but don't simply revert without attempting to fix the issues and incorporate new information) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, it would be best if SPAs did not take the lead in reorganizing the article. Racepacket (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than collaborating and addressing specific changes with discussion or justification, Racepacket is reverting my edits simply because this is my first article. Please explain why information on specific issues belong in a general discussion of the governorship, rather than under headings; it seems more organized and readable with the headings. Also, what is the ustification for removing the Feinstein quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is not "your" article. It is a group effort. Feinstein is biased because of the large campaign donation. If you want to list all of the people who have something nice to say about Malek and why they have a financial interest in saying it, do it in the Malek article. What is relevant to this article is that McDonnell made an appointment and when publicly questioned about it, he claimed that he was not aware of information that pre-existed the appointment in the Malek Wikipedia article as well as many other public sources. At least two members of the House of Delegates have raised concerns about Malek's actions in the Nixon Administration and with the 2007 SEC investigation. The fact that the spinmasters have lined up people to say nice things about Malek doesn't fit into the flow, and nobody is claiming that Malek does not have any defenders. Again, perhaps the SPAs should not take the lead in reorganizing the article. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not "your" article either, Racepacket. You have no more right to edit this article than anyone else. It's POV to quote Malek's detractors, but not his supporters, just because it's your opinion that Feinstein was bought off. As far as spinmeistering, you are the one doing that here, by imputing bias to Feinstein, but not to Malek's detractors. Plazak (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that this was "my" article; I simply asked for collaboration rather than confrontation and unjustified substantive edits. Plazak hit the proverbial nail on the head "It's POV to quote Malek's detractors, but not his supporters." Which brings me to my most recent edit: Racepacket used facts a (Malek donated to Feinstein) and b (Feinstein praised Malek) to imply c, Feinstein praised Malek because of his donation. This is unsourced, and therefore a violation of wp:syn . As such, the reference to Malek's donation was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, as per my last post, please explain why information on specific issues belong in a general discussion of the governorship, rather than under headings; it seems more organized and readable with the headings. I'd like to hear reasoning to the contrary. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The donation statement implies a connection between the two and is original research. Unless you can find a Reliable Source that specifically makes that connection we cannot include it. Arzel (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that members of the state legislature have criticized an appointment on two grounds - both of which are well-documented facts covered in the Malek Wikipedia article. Two weeks later, McDonnell is asked about the appointee's past and he publicly said he was not aware of it. This points out that he did not properly vet the appointment. Adding quotations from two people who think that the appointee is a nice guy is not relevant. The fact that one quote comes from someone to whom the appointee and his wife were a major donor should lead Wikipedia to avoid relying or using that quote. The best approach is to merely report the controversy in a factual manner and avoid opinion. McDonnell does not dispute the two problems with the appointee's past, he just says that he did not know about the appointee's actions during the Nixon administration. Coverage of Malek's past, the people who think is he a good or bad person and whether he donates to them can be covered in the Malek article, not the McDonnell article. Racepacket (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several areas of concern I find with Racepacket's argument. First, he/she says "This points out that he did not properly vet the appointment." It seems that this is again Racepacket drawing his/her own conclusions: because there is an issue that opponents of Malek's appointment have brought to the center of attention, and because McDonnell didn;t know about it, Racepacket assumes that (1) the vetting process for the Commission was inadequate and (2) had McDonnell known about Malek's history, the appointment never would have been made. Neither of these conclusions are sourced, so the argument is moot. Racepacket has a history of drawing his/her own unsourced conclusions from information provided.

There is a major flaw in the above reasoning. Most people would infer from the fact that McDonnell did not know about Malek's role in the demotion of the Jewish BLS managers would indicated that at the very least, the vetting process was inadequate. We do not speculate that "had McDonnell known about Malek's history, the appointment never would have been made." Two legislators quoted on May 10 feel that way.

And where do the two legislators say that McDonnell would have never made the appointment had he known about Malek's past? Or is that another inference? "Most people". . .good use of weasel words, Racepacket. The relevancy of Malek's role in the controversy as it relates to his current appointment is debatable, so we can't assume the vetting process is flawed.

"Adding quotations from two people who think that the appointee is a nice guy is not relevant. Adding quotations from two people who think that the appointee is a nice guy is not relevant. The fact that one quote comes from someone to whom the appointee and his wife were a major donor should lead Wikipedia to avoid relying or using that quote." Let's forget for a moment that Racepacket added quotes from McDonnell's political opponents denouncing McDonnell; I don't mind that those quotes are there, so long as we show that they are, in fact, McDonnell's political opponents. The point of the two quotes are not to show that Malek is "a nice guy," but rather to show that he is not the anti-Semite his opponents are portraying him as. For someone who came to the conclusion that McDonnell's vetting process must be flawed, Racepacket should understand the importance of providing information that demonstrates how those around Malek view his moral character. As to the second part, Racepacket is again drawing his/her own conclusions: that because Malek and his wife made donations to Feinstein's campaign--some dating over 10 years back--that Feinstein is not able to make a judgement on Malek's character. Nevermind that she might actually know him from his decades in public service, they developed a friendship, and as a result, he gave to her campaign, she knows his character and comes to the defense of a friend; no, according to Racepacket, $8,900 given over a 10-year period is enough to buy the character endorsement of a United States Senator from the other side of the country.

Simply put, the quotes add an alternate point-of-view. To remove them would be giving undue weight to one side while ignoring the other, violating the NPOV rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not really. A man who lives in McLean VA is appointed chair of a Virginia Commission. Why should Wikipedia give any credence to a woman from California, who was not a part of the Nixon Administration or has any first-hand knowledge of his actions during the Nixon Administration, but has received $8,900 in donations from the man? Do you have any quotes from someone who was involved in the BLS controversy that said that he did not develop a list of Jewish BLS managers for demotion, based on religion? This article is about McDonnell not Malek. On May 10, two legislators came forward with their concerns: the Nixon Administration stuff and the SEC violations. Anyone who bother to read Wikipedia would know the relevant facts. Two weeks later, McDonnell was asked about it on the radio. (He was not asked what Senators from California thought about a large donor.) McDonnell said on the radio he did not know those facts. The news coverage focused on McDonnell's denial of knowledge or vetting, and your edits are trying to distort that. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First, let's stop calling Malek a "large donor." This term is a matter of opinion; donor? Yes. But a "large donor?" Personally, I think an average of $890 per year from a man who can certainly afford many more times the amount does not qualify him as a "large" donor to Feinstein. But to some, he may be--for argument's sake, let's call him a "donor." Now that that's out of the way, the section in question opens with "Two of McDonnell's appointments drew criticism." It then goes on to explain why two of McDonnell's appointments drew criticism--namely that 40 year old anti-Semitic events are indicators of Malek's character, issues that should have been brought out in the vetting process (though again, this last part is debatable). Bringing in the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Jewish Senator who has known Malek to defend his character against these acusations, and thereby defending McDonnell's decision for appointment is absolutely relevant. Finally, stop sneaking in unsourced phrases like "McDonnell's camp solicited an endorsement." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's so easy to turn Racepacket's own argument to impugn Malek's detractors: "Why should Wikipedia give any credence to a" person "who was not a part of the Nixon Administration or has any first-hand knowledge of his actions during the Nixon Administration, but" is a political opponent of the governor. Racepacket's refusal to use consistent critera for inclusion reveals his blatant POV-pushing in this matter. Plazak (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The annual limit on campaign contributions is $2,000. So $8,900 from an out-of-state individual is a "large donor" for a federal campaign. Fred Malek was a "bundler" for John McCain in 2008, bundling $500,000 in donations to McCain. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00006424 The dates of the $9,900 Malek donations to Feinstein were:

Malek to Feinstein

Year	Contribution
6/26/09	$1,000
9/2/05	$2,000
9/2/05	$1,900
7/31/03	$2,000
12/31/99	$1,000
12/31/99	$1,000
6/18/91	$1,000

It would be interesting to learn why the SPA believes that Feinstein and Malek are personal, long time friends and how Feinstein would have a credible basis for forming her opinions of Malek. However, this article is about McDonnell, not Feinstein. Malek has donated to Bob McDonnell repeatedly including $25,000 to McDonnell's PAC within a week of the appointment as Commission chair. http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/index/9981?start_year=1996&end_year=2010&lookup_type=year&filing_period=all

Selective Malek Virginia Donations

$50,000	Republican Party of Virginia
$26,000	McDonnell for Governor - Robert
$25,000	Opportunity Virginia PAC
$1,000	McDonnell for Attorney General - Bob

More importantly, the SPA edits are attempting to distract from and ignore the SEC violations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060204611_2.html states "Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has known Malek socially for several decades, said in a separate statement that she has "great respect, trust and admiration" for him and that "he has no bias of any kind whatsoever." What was Racepacket's point in bringing up " Malek has donated to Bob McDonnell repeatedly including $25,000 to McDonnell's PAC within a week of the appointment as Commission chair?" Is he/she again violating wp:syn by implying something not in the source?

It actually appears, according to the origina source used by Racepacket, that only $6,900 came from Malek and his wife Marlene. 2000 came from another Malek--Mariene. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_ind/S0CA00199/1/M/%7Cpublisher=Federal%20Election%20Commission%7Ctitle=FEC%20Disclosure%20Report%20Search%20Results%7Caccessdate=2010-05-29

The FEC data base is subject to typographic errors. Mrs. Frederick Malek and Mariene A. Malek are actually the same person, living at the same zip code in McLean Virginia. Racepacket (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, please explain how I'm "attempting to distract from and ignore the SEC violations," especially when I added information and a source about the topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is clear that 173.53.60.89 has at least an emotional commitment to Bob McDonnell and has not demonstrated any commitment to our overall goal of building an encyclopedia. Racepacket (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to provide NPOV information. Racepacket has failed to demonstrate time and time again how he is abiding by the NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.