Jump to content

Talk:Pat McCrory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Opening written as a support piece?

Good lord...I just visited this page for the first time and I am SHOCKED. The intro of this guy is *nearly as long as the intro for the article on Abraham Lincoln.* Stop and think about that. Moreover, every paragraph is CLEARLY just a campaign advertisement! Look at this! They're all describing his successes and how he's made the state better in extremely biased terms! This isn't even remotely *trying* to be neutral! This NEEDS to be rewritten heavily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerovistae (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

transit tax

I removed this sentence from the transportation section: "In recent years, the tax has raised about $70 million annually in revenue, and cost a family earning $57,000 a year about $39."

None of the figures have a citation, the annual tax revenue, census data on the number of families in the CLT metro or the calculation. It also gives an incomplete picture of light rail in Charlotte. There is no reference to the economic development along the light rail line or the budgeting to operate LYNX.

Vitocmarda (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

education edit

I just moved the statement about his honorary doctorate degree to flow better with the article's sense of time. Also, its previous placement was misleading - making it sound like an earned PhD and part of his "education". 71.74.30.93 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

pls fix

"Unfortunately, the bill has done damage to North Carolina's economy in the form of lost jobs, government travel bans & multiple cancelled entertainment events" reads like an attack piece. The unsusbstantiated claim of damage to the economy is also not quantitative, and of dubious veracity, given that the state's GDP growth is currently #1 in the country. http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/29/pat-mccrory/mccrory-north-carolina-has-had-countrys-fastest-gr/ It could be stated in a neutral POV way, starting with the deletion of the introductory adverb and the speculative reference to some unspecified potential future "damage." As a form of protest, some municipal and state governments have banned their employees from traveling to the state, and pop artists Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam have cancelled their scheduled concerts there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4E92:5B00:A47D:520C:8D17:4E40 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


under Economics, the word sense should read since thanks 24.158.40.160 (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The text of this article seems largely to come verbatim from Patrick McCrory's current re-election campaign website, the address of which is http://www.patmccrory.com.

  • As a disinterested party who stumbled across this page via 'random article', I didn't detect any POV issues on my first read. In fact, it seemed like your typical dry bio to me. Perhaps you can clarify which specific statements you believe to lack NPOV? Removing the POV tag until then --71.111.209.194 20:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As the text is taken verbatim from Mr. McCrory's own website, this "article" is essentially an advertisement rather than biography. Restoring the POV tag for now.

  • It may be true that the primary source is his website, but the question remains: which statements in this article do you believe lack NPOV? Which ones, in particular, do you believe show bias? I picked through this article again and can find two statements that might suggest a personal opinion:
  • ..."has distinguished himself as a leader"...
  • ..."recognizing his innovative work"...
Is this what you are referring to? If so, they can easily be cleaned up. I'm removing the POV tag and am hoping you'll be willing to discuss this, or better yet, just correct the statements you have a problem with. --71.111.209.194 21:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    The whole second paragraph is just fluff without references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.64.217 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Has anybody noticed that the same person with the same URL has been vandalizing this page over and over again? Sounds like a far right element has tried to ruin this page. "Republican in name only?" Give me a break. Sounds like somebody needs to get a life.

_____________________________

It seems to me someone from McCrory's camp is simply using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. I didn't realize that was acceptable, or that it's acceptable to post things verbatim from other sources, as the ONLY content of an article, on Wikipedia. I don't think I understand the purpose of an online encyclopedia where people can promote themselves or just copy and paste from another source. I'm not sure I understand why you object to someone pointing this out to visitors and keep removing the tag either.

  • I think somebody has a personal problem with the man. It seems everytime that something is added that my be preceived as positive,the same person with differn't names countinues to delete positive information and add negative information in it's place. CharMeck has deleted a whole section on crime and added negative information insted. Now i'm all for both sides. My edit's include both positive and negative information. Ex. Crime, Transpertation. But the same editor is so into negativity that he/she has put the same exact information in two differn't places of the article. This person doesn't even read his/her own work. Example: the light rail article is already 2/3 negative(for some reason that helps McCrory?), why would you add another point about that at the start of the article about it? It's fine when you do not agree, it's a whole differn't thing when the same person deletes factual information so they can add negative information. This person claims that this is used as a promotional tool for McCrory. But the editor sees any positive information as promotional. Charmeck is now claiming that the Mayor is in some kind of scandal with Nascar. This is not a far right blog. I hope everybody notices that this person's revisions have all been edited with that mindset. Just because somebody is not ultraconservative like you does not mean they are liberal. Last, do only evil liberals live downtown? Word of advice: 1. Open your mind

Moral Mondays?

Shouldn't there be something about his legislative agenda, which is prompting weekly demonstrations and civil disobedience? I think that could be added without a political bias. It's a big part of the news of his administration and a legacy he would like to leave the state. Latichever (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be lots of reliable sources for this, I'll see what I can do if no one beats me to it. a13ean (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Done here. a13ean (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
A nice start. It seems to me that the "Moral Monday" protests deserve an article of their own at this point, given the wide coverage in an array of media outlets, the increasing (8+ weeks) timespan of the events, and comments about the protests by notable state lawmakers and officials. Does this seem reasonable to others? Zachlipton (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is this section so long when it has it's own article?CFredkin (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The following has been removed from the page, as it is a blatant cut and paste job from here. It should be replaced with a similar section which is not a copyright violation, please don't simply restore it.

McCrory was born on October 17, 1956 in Columbus, Ohio, to Rollin "Mac" and Audrey McCrory. His father was an engineer and entrepreneur who once served on the city council in Worthington, Ohio. He is the youngest of four children, with two sisters and one brother.

When he was nine, he moved with his family to Jamestown, North Carolina, a suburb of Greensboro. There, he attended Jamestown Elementary, Millis Road Elementary and Jamestown Junior High. At the age of 16, he became student body president at Ragsdale High School in Jamestown. He graduated high school in 1974.[1]

While studying to become a teacher, McCrory fell into a different career. During college, he spent the summers working construction and reading meters for Duke Energy. In 1978, McCrory graduated from Catawba College in Salisbury, North Carolina, and he received a North Carolina teaching certificate that year. He decided against teaching and instead went to work full-time for Duke Energy. A management training program put him through a rotation of digging ditches and climbing electric poles as well as stints in office jobs. He rose through a variety of recruiting and training jobs to become a senior adviser with Duke Energy's Business and Economic Development Group. He and his wife, Ann Gordon McCrory, married in 1988.[1]

A number of other sections include identical phrasing to other web sites, often not the ones that are cited. These include "the past six-term Chair of the USCM Environmental Committee", " founded the Mayor's Mentoring Alliance in 1995 and has personally served as a Mentor to two youths", and "only elected official to serve on the national board of the Afterschool Alliance". This may require a large-scale cleanup. a13ean (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for detecting and removing the worst of the remaining issue. I've added the close paraphrasing tag in the hopes of encouraging review and cleanup. A search of the article's history shows that content entered in May 2010. For example, see this addition, which is not only taken from but clearly cites the source. Problematic content was added in this sequence of edits, which also includes content from other sources. I don't know if those include pasting or close paraphrasing as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Beckwith, Ryan Teague (December 13, 2007). "Under the Dome profile". Raleigh News and Observer. Retrieved January 11, 2013.

POV statement in "Issues" sub-sub-subsection

The statement, "On 7/29/13, McCrory signed the most restrictive abortion bill into law, despite having admitted that he had not read the bill, and in direct contravention of his campaign pledge," seems to be unreferenced POV.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I rm'ed that part and added a line with a cite in the Governor section. a13ean (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Worst Governor in America?

Does anyone really believe that the CREW reference to McCrory being "one of the worst governors in America" is appropriate in this article? It appears that the rating is based on a subjective analysis limited to 16 Republican governors and 2 Democratic governors and in which all the governors analyzed received the rating. No criteria were specified. Any thoughts from the community?CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Empty political POV statement that tells the reader nothing. Who is this organization, and why is its opinion noteworthy? John2510 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on this, but please do not describe the addition as "vandalism." It is a content dispute. Be careful with the edit summary. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I concur the section should be a part of the article. The distinction has been duly obtained. However, I predict that it will not because in my experience there exist a right wing bias from the wikipedia editor pool. A governor is political by nature and politics is all POV. Also, I suggest that the well documented position at Duke Energy be a part of his article; after all he was employed there for years and must have done something other than carry out their political agenda. --Wikipietime (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Governor of North Carolina POV Dispute

The highlights of the contents succeeding "Governor of North Carolina" seem to only focus on negative topics of discussion. While these topics are referenced and likely truthful, subsequently not necessitating their removal or further edit, there needs to be additional highlights that focus on other laws passed in order to properly represent the total picture. The addition of at least three significant bills signed into law by McCrory that didn't generate excess controversy, the removal of the "In a nationally broadcast...number of academics" paragraph (or relocation to a "Controversies" section) under Education, and the updating of the Approval Ratings section are minimal changes that ought to be made immediately. The editing of the Education section ought to focus on legislative accomplishments only. The removal or relocation of the beginning paragraph regarding controversial statements would accomplish this. The best way is likely best achievable through adding a "Controversies" section. This would allow his legislative accomplishments to be read in an unbiased manner while shining light on significant controversies that generated a negative reaction from North Carolina citizens. I ask that the POV flag is not removed until all discussion is addressed in regards to these recommended changes. Jlcurtis (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Changes Summary and Approval Ratings Update

Three pieces of significant legislation have been added to the Governor of North Carolina section in an attempt to achieve neutrality. For the same purpose, irrelevant language regarding a radio interview was removed from the Education section and relocated to the newly created Controversies section. The Abortion section and Federal Duke Energy Investigation sections were collapsed and relocated to Controversies as they did not merit having their own sections, and doing so was only a further attempt to balance the article to achieve neutrality as well as streamline the article.

The Approval Ratings section has been updated to reflect recent polling data. The flag for needed updates has been removed. Jlcurtis (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pat McCrory. 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pat McCrory. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent revert warring

An editor has repeatedly added a religion to this subject's Infobox in violation of WP:BLPCAT, which says that while it is fine to include information about religion in the body of the article, the |Religion= infobox field and categories aren't to be used unless the subject is notable because of their religion. The addition is also in violation of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person and related sub-templates. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." There is no indication in our article that McCrory is famous for his Presbyterianism. The editor claims in an edit summary that his religious notability is cited in the article with reliable source, but I don't see it, there is only a citation (now a deadlink) that he is a Presbyterian, but the sources don't say he is notable for it. I'm fairly certain that we didn't create a Wikipedia article for McCrory because he's a Presbyterian, but if I'm overlooking a source which indicates otherwise, could someone please point it out? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Should the lead summarize what the article-body says about HB2 and the DOJ response?

Reflecting what reliable sources say, the body of this article notes that the governor received national attention for signing HB2, and the US Department of Justice (and others) have filed suit over it. Should the lead summarize this? A few IPs have argued it should not, so I'd like to start a discussion. in my view, the lead should summarize it. (Here is an example of one way it could, and currently does, summarize it.)
WP:LEAD says the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (Emphasis mine.) One IP mentions "Bio guidelines" (meaning WP:BLP?) as a reason to remove the content from the lead: but if the information that the governor signed the law and that the Justice Department has filed suit against him over it, which is reported in reliable sources, is in some way a violation of that policy, it would not make sense to leave the information in the article body, would it?
-sche (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2016


Under section 2.4.7 "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act," the description of the law highlights the fact that it allows discrimination against LGBT individuals. While this does draw criticism, this is only a part of the law, and there are broader concerns for how the law exerts the state's power over local governments (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_Security_Act). I suggest adding the following after "which has been criticized because it prevents transgender people who do not or cannot alter their birth certificates from using the restroom consistent with their gender identity.[8]":

More broadly, the law eliminates municipal anti-discrimination policies concerning race, gender, and veteran status or military service, and it prohibits municipalities from establishing a local minimum wage.

Citation: Mollie Reilly. "North Carolina Governor Signs Bill Banning Cities From Protecting LGBT People (UPDATE)." 23 March 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination_us_56f2b7dbe4b0c3ef5217676c.


71.69.192.223 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done and thank you!  Rules of engagement Paine  05:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Now that Cooper's lead has grown wider then 10,000 votes. Should Cooper be included as Governor-elect? GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Succeeded by

Traditionally, when a political candidate loses an election, there is a "Succeeded by" with the successors name inserted into the dialog box with the pertinent facts of the individual politician's basic facts. Why not in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.241.143 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Post Gubernatorial Activities

A section is needed. Wikipietime (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Move some peripheral content

Many paragraphs in the section on HB2 barely mention and are for the most part not directly topical to McCrory, like the two starting "On several occasions,..." which delve into the weeds of Democratic efforts, mostly not (or only peripherally) involving McCrory, to repeal or not repeal it. I suggest that they should be incorporated into the main article on HB2 or in some cases North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2016, the former of which could then be linked at the top of the section using {{Main article}}. In this way, this article stays on topic and we avoid duplicating a lot of the content of [[HB2]] in this article. Thoughts? -sche (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Alevo and Russian Billionaires

Why was that Russian billionaire in Charlotte? He was looking in on his investment [1]

Significant coverage in article need as the historical details emerge of tangle of Trump connections, Vladislav Baumgertner, Alevo, McCroy, American Swiss Foundation. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pat McCrory. 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) 11:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Pat McCrory. 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) 07:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

False voter fraud claims

One editor removed mention that McCrory's claims about voter fraud are false, even though it's the subject of literally both of the cited RS (it's even in the headline of both if i recall correctly). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

To understand why your edits are unnecessary, you must understand the definition of "claim." A claim is "an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt." Because a claim is inherently in doubt, it is not necessary to add that a claim is false. Your label of this claim as false is in violation of WP:NPOV, and non encyclopedic. KidAd (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard. The cited RS clearly and explicitly say that the claim in question is false, and thus we ought to describe it as such as well. Surely, you understand the difference between a disputed claim and a false claim? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I stand by my statements. It would be like saying "proposed theory." Because a theory, like a scientific theory, can be disputed, describing it as "proposed" would be redundant. To call it a "wrong theory" would show whoever to be labeling it as biased. The subject is claiming voter fraud, which means that this claim can be disputed. If you think the claim is false, that's up to you, but it doesn't belong in the article. KidAd (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"If you think the claim is false, that's up to you" - it's not up to me. It's literally what the cited RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Yet you continue to edit the content in. I've read the sources, and they seem to have the same problem as you do. I will also add that [2] and [3] support the claims of voter fraud. Despite this, I would not advocate to change the language to "true claims" and think that they should remain neutral "claims." KidAd (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Neither of those sources support McCrory's claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding {{Reflist-talk}} to force reflist to display in this section, rather than appear within the last discussion on this page. Prime Lemur (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hall, Kevin. "Why was that Russian billionaire in Charlotte? He was looking in on his investment".
  2. ^ https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article146486019.html
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/us/north-carolina-voting.html

NC State Board of Elections Report

I have added details of substantiated voting irregularities found by NC's State Board of Elections Post-Election Audit Report (dated April 17, 2017) for the 2016 general election, along with a summary quote from the report. It is my personal view that this article would be improved by moving McCrory's statements about electoral irregularities, along with my addition, to a Controversies section. I must admit, I don't know if adding a Controversies section is still good and current practice on WP, so any feedback would be gratefully received. Prime Lemur (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans (and pinging KidAd), you've reverted an edit of mine, and reinserted something that has been earlier contested Talk:Pat McCrory#False voter fraud claims.
I'm starting a discussion under WP:BRD. I was hoping that adding the specific details of the findings of the NCSEB Audit Report could short circuit an argument over whether specific claims made were subsequently supported by an independent source. The audit report found 0.01% of votes were irregular. It also states that this small number of irregular votes were insufficient to influence the 2016 general election in the state of NC.
My view is we should give readers enough credit to draw their own conclusions from statements of fact by an independent statutory body responsible for overseeing elections in McCrory's home state.
I welcome a discussion of the topic.

News&Observer 508 ineligible voters cast ballots in 2016, according to NC elections agency report

NCSEB Audit Report for 2016 General Election

Edit @03:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC): I should add, I have no view as to whether your addition in the McCrory article should stay ... its not something I, personally, contest. It is the deletion of my edit that's my issue here. I'd also add: I don't consider your other deletion, about McCrory's loss being the first of a sitting NC Governor in over a century, as "trivia". As a non-US citizen, I found that a useful aid in understanding the 2016 election in NC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Lemur (talk • contribs)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_McCrory/Archive_1&oldid=1021510328"