Jump to content

Talk:Tim Kaine/Archive 1

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

Smart growth

Well, we've been going back and forth on the Smart Growth section, so I figured this would be an appropriate place to discuss it. A few people here have been adamant that this be written as an issue specific only to Northern Virginia.

Personally, I don't believe that, but I don't expect you to go on my personal beliefs here.

So let's instead see what Kaine himself has to say on the subject. Go to the main campaign webpage, click on "Issues" and go to the section under transportation (or skip all that and just click here). Now, scroll down to the section entitled "Grow Right, Get There Faster". As far as I can tell, this is the only section on his web page that deals with Smart Growth economics, and if you find another section, please feel free to point me in that direction. In any case, he talks about it here. Nowhere is the phrase "Northern Virginia" even mentioned. He talks about it as he would apply it to Virginia on the whole, and as such, I don't see any reason to fence this off as specifically an Northern Virginia issue here.

That's my case to stick to the way I've edited it. Is there anything about that that doesn't sit well with anyone? Amargo Scribe 00:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what Smart Growth is, and it's introduced by saying that it's bad. Then the proponents' sentence is ended noting the stance is dubious. Not sure if it's POV or just a typo, could the writer reword or trim and just link to the definition/controversy? Bob is a proponent of cheese which critics think is naughty. Proponents say cheese is good, but critics disagree. Djbell 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Failure to Get Virginia Cops 287(g) Training Should Be Discussed in the Article

Although Virginia has been flooded by illegal immigrants, Governor Kaine has failed to take steps to allow Virginia state police to get 287(g) training. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the legal authority for state and local enforcement to investigate, detain, and arrest aliens on civil and crimi­nal grounds. Kaine has expressed so little concern for the problem of illegal immigration that Virginia police officers have not gotten §287(g) training. As a consequence, Virginia essentially remains a haven for illegal immigrants, with the consequent crime and the consequent burdens on public schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.138 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly prochoice"

Is there some documentation for that claim?

==waite until January 2006== Until January 2006 (unless Warner dies, resigns or is removed), Kaine is still Lt.Gov. of Virginia ,therefore he shouldn't have a Governor of Virginia template (until he's governor). Mightberight/wrong 14:09, 9 November 2005.

He's "personally pro-life" but he supports abortion rights. He's pro-choice and should not be listed in the group for pro-life politicians. The Secretary of Funk 08:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaine born in Minnesota

Tim Kaine was born in St. Paul, Minnesota (See [1]), not Kansas City, Mo.

--Bullproof9 18:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Info box

There seems to be an edit war in the making over whether to have an infor box and how to style the information, since Kaine has not yet been sworn in as Governor. Rather than reverting each other, can we discuss it here and come to a consensus? Thanks! TMS63112 20:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • wait until January 2006 (Part II), I disagree with info boxes that make assumptions. Codey of New Jersey & Warner of Virginia don't leave office until January 2006. Thought unlikely, either retiring Governor could die, resign or be removed. Alot can happen in the weeks left in their respective terms. Does anyone agree or disagree? Mightberight/wrong 20:36, 9 November 2005.

Early leads. There is no way he has a +14 in the Valley.

New Photo

At Kaine's Governor-elect site, there is a new photo (official Governor's photo) available.

http://www.govelect.virginia.gov/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.243.8 (talk • contribs) .

Requested citation

I deleted the portion about Kaine running a "pro-choice" and "pro-death penaly" campaign. I worked for the campaign and i can promise you that he did neither. (unsigned comment by User:68.48.81.61)

Thank you, but Wikipedia does not publish original research. I restored the paragraph with a request for citation. If one can't be provided, the material should be removed. Tom Harrison Talk 03:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"His Excellency"

Question. Over on Mitt Romney's page, they use the title "his Excellency" right up top. Since that if officialy a Virginia Governor's title, should we put it on here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.243.8 (talk • contribs) .

Revert war over photo

There appears to be a revert war going on regarding which photo to use for Governor Kaine. The two images are:

File:Kaine-StatePortrait.jpg
"State Portrait"
File:Gov Tim Kaine.jpg
"Governor"

Rather than just knocking it back and forth, how about talking about it and see what the community at large would prefer? --StuffOfInterest 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who like "State Portrait"

  1. Fits in with portrait of previous governors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmc0 (talk • contribs)
  2. Public domain, not subject to surprise deletion. — Feb. 21, '06 [00:54] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Those who like "Governor"

  1. Better background, more centered body position. --StuffOfInterest 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Clarification

"On April 17, Governor Kaine ordered an independent review yesterday of Virginia Tech's handling of Monday's massacre after 24 hours of criticism that the university waited too long to inform students and faculty of a potential danger."

What does yesterday mean in this context? It should probably be edited to make it clear which date it refers to. 128.194.97.20 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Presidential candidacy?

My sister said she heard something on the news claiming that Kaine is considering running for President. Accurate? WAVY 10 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Highest Approval rating in the country"

I removed the sentence from the first paragraph that stated that Kaine had the highest approval rating of any Governor in the country. First, the poll is outdated now by at least two months. Second, the SurveyUSA polls referenced only polled a handful of states, not all of the states in the country. Third, in more recent polling, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has approval ratings in the high 80s, low 90s, smashing Kaine's 60% rating.

Fourth, Kaine's popularity has diminished considerably because of Kaine's failure to control the tsunami of illegal immigration in the Commonwealth of Virginia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 20:29, October 10, 2008
No doubt you'll be providing a citation for that real soon now. I kid, of course. You and I both know that you totally made that up.--WaldoJ (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Palin, Governor Joe Manchin also has extraordinarily high ratings, as do Kathy Sebelius, Jodi Rell, Jim Douglas, Charlie Crist, Dave Freudenthal, Brian Schweitzer, John Hoeven, Mike Rounds, and John Lynch.

If 11 of 50 governors have such ratings, then they're not "extraordinarily high," are they? That's really just the top 20%, isn't it?--WaldoJ (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life?

The article says:

Tim Kaine has stated he has a "faith-based opposition to abortion". [2] He also supports promoting abstinence and opposes late-term abortion.[3] Tim Kaine is a member of Democrats For Life of America.

This is a horribly imbalanced and mischaracterizing passage. A quick Google search reveals that Kaine's positions on abortion and sex education shouldn't be characterized like this. See here and here, for example. Also, the statement about Kaine being a member of Democrats for Life of America is wholly un-sourced and I can find no support for it.

Until someone clears these issues up, I'm taking this passage out.

Just a notet I think he pretty much stated this in an interview I saw him in end of July beginning of August I will try and find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.183 (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Richmond murder rate

The end of this section:

The City of Richmond had been long notorious for having one of the highest murder rates in the United States. The trend had worsened greatly in the 1980s, and had continued into the 1990s. As mayor, Kaine was credited with helping to create and implement the gun law known as Project Exile.

makes no sense. Did the murder rate go down during his time on the council (and as Mayor). Tie the points together, please. Also, add citations. AlbertHall (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of signature

In my correspondence with the office of Tim Kaine over GFDL-ing some of their images, the webmaster made this request:

Also, on Tim Kaine's page, there is a graphic of his signature that needs to be taken down for obvious security reasons. The graphic's page is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tim_Kaine_Signature.png
The Licensing section states that this work is in the public domain in the US because it is a work of the United States Federal Government. Then it states under the "Comment" heading that the graphic was taken from an email distributed on the Moving Virginia Forward PAC mailing list. A PAC office is by definition a private group, not affiliated with the United States Federal Government, so there's obviously a conflict here. Please let me know when this graphic can be removed.

Given that the office of Governor Kaine objects to the image being on Wikipedia for security reasons, I have removed it from the article to show good faith until the copyright status can be definitely determined on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.

⟳ausa کui × 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have frankly had it with whichever idiot keeps posting the signature of Governor Kaine. If the signature appears again, I am washing my hands of this and reporting it to the Virginia Attorney General's Office and the Virginia and US Election Commissions. It is a felony for whoever is doing it to post his, or any other sitting office holder's "signature, facsimile thereof, other unique and private identifying information in any public media where that signature or other identifying private information could be used by any unauthorized person, persons or organization to usurp, embezzle, undermine or falsely claim the authority of action of the office. Violations of the section shall be punishable by no less than 2 nor more than 25 years imprisonment and/or a $100,000 dollar fine, or both." (Code of Virginia, Elections and Elected Officials; statutes appertaining to) I WILL NOT be a part of committing a felony. Period. If it shows up again, you and wikipedia can deal with the Virginia Attorney General's office. Themoodyblue (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of policies which may interest you: Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats. faithless (speak) 07:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This does not appear to be a direct legal threat such as "I am going to sue Wikipedia if you don't...", but an explanation of a potential legal violation. See the Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats essay for the potential harm caused by ignoring legal issues.
Themoodyblue it is not particularly helpful to call people idiots or to get involved in an edit war and then walk away after posting your first substantive comment. You can probably resolve the problem in a lot less time through discussion than the time you have already spent edit warring. One option for all sides to consider is if there is a legal objection to using the signature a polite request from an official in Virginia to the Wikimedia Foundation may resolve the issue one way or another.
However I would suggest to both of you that you seek third party advice on this issue first before taking precipitous action. It would be a lot more productive to get agreement on where to stand on a potential legal issue than to bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. Road Wizard (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I received third party advice, from Governor Kaine's office, about this and I am right and they are not happy. If an exemplar of the Governor's signature is out on the internet, then all kinds of forgeries and other things could be potentially created and used illegally. Leave it off! Once he is out of office in January, then it is fine. Until then, it is a felony. And also, it does not violate the legal threats policy to point out a post or contribution directly violates the law. Themoodyblue (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Code of Virginia. Themoodyblue, I can't seem to find anything to support your claims, and it is causing me great vexation. Would you be so kind as to show me where you're pulling this from? Best, faithless (speak) 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If there is a real legal issue here, as opposed to a not-real legal issue, it should not be adressed on this talk page, but rather with a letter to the wikimedia legal team. 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, now that I understand this is a virginia issue, I should note that the wikimedia foundation is not located in Virginia. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I also checked for this clause without success. I should also point out that the wording of that law, if it exists, is not as clear as you make it out to be. A plausible (and in my mind, likely) interpretation of the law is that they are prohibiting certain kinds of forgery. For example, someone could write a letter to the Washington Post ostensibly from the Governor ordering citizens to shoot illegal immigrants. By publishing such a letter, random people could point to it as an excuse for murder, so publishing the article is illegal. This may also make the initial letter illegal because it attempts to "falsely claim the authority of action of the office", but that is harder to say since the initial letter writer wasn't actually publishing it himself. But the Wikipedia article is making no attempt to assume any powers of the Governor's office, and as such is unlikely to be violating the alleged ordinance. Yes, someone could borrow the signature to attempt to violate the law, but we don't change articles based on hypotheticals. If you could provide a full quote and a link to the relevant law, it would make this much simpler. Finally, even if the law exists, and the full reading would make this illegal, it's not clear to me how Wikipedia would be subject to it. One of the advantages of an online presence is that you are only subject to the local laws where you are hosted. We don't censor articles at the request of Myanmar or China, so why would we do so for the state of Virginia? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice Hipocrite's post, so some of my post is a bit redundant. Apologies. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please. This is ridiculous and obviously irrelevant. Who here would be the first to contact His Honor and advise that it may not be in his best interests to sign any future emails he might distribute to the "Moving Virginia Forward PAC mailing list," or to sign any public document for that matter? Steveozone (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Burden of proof is not on us to show why this is in copyright. Can someone explain to me what reason we have to believe that this signature is not in copyright? causa sui× 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless you plan on going around to the hundreds (if not thousands) of articles on Wikipedia which feature these signature pics and removing them, please drop it. faithless (speak) 21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Last name

I didn't know his last name was spelled with a "K". Should Tim Caine and/or Tim Cain redirect or (sorry for the made-up verb) disambiguate to the Tim Kaine page? 192.85.50.2 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected Tim Caine to this article. Thanks for the suggestion. ⟳ausa کui × 04:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Would somebody remove Incumbent from the DNC Chairman & Governor of Virgina sections? It's un-needed there, as the fact that his still holding those positions, makes him incumbent. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009

I am curious, as to why there is no information on this years gubernatorial election. An election I will add, that he lost. This article seems to be biased to him, and fails to mention that he will soon, no longer be Governor of Virginia.--Subman758 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Subman, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Kaine was not running in this year's election, as Virginia is the only state that does not allow a governor to succeed themselves. He didn't lose the election as he was not IN the election, genius. Please know what you are talking about before you post. If you meant that his party lost the election, that needs to be credited to Sen. Deeds, not Kaine. Deeds was the name on the ticket, and both Kaine and Warner before him had some of the highest approval ratings of any Virginia governor in history. Themoodyblue (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Subman, Governor Kaine couldn't seek re-election. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tim Kaine. 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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tim Kaine. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Lock

Can we get an admin here to lock the page, too much vandalism by unregistered people. Obinna Onyemaobi (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, Thank you. Obinna Onyemaobi (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Project Exile

I have changed the wording for Project Exile to qualify the claims of its success. Crime fell in the mid to late 1990s throughout the U.S. where various approaches were taken including broken windows, Boston miracle, community policing, improving professionalism or in some cases no changes at all. It is impossible to approve that any of these approaches caused any results and it should be reported as opinion rather than fact. TFD (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

Capitalize "2016 Vice Presidential Campaign"


66.220.20.54 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Good faith request denied per WP:MOSCAPS.--JayJasper (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Marriage and gay rights

[Full disclosure: longtime editor here, but I'm now a full-time employee of the Democratic National Committee, which is headed by Tim Kaine.]

There's a seriously botched quote in the political positions section, which I'm going to mark w/ a dubious tag. It includes two paragraphs that are nowhere in the reference provided. The juxtaposition of unsourced and non-contemporaneous language distorts Kaine's views, and lends to an inference that the quoted passage represents a single comment by Kaine on LGBT rights—which is incorrect.

Since I have a clear potential conflict of interest I'll refrain from making a substantive edit. This needs fixing, though. —GGreeneVa (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the quote, which appears to be original research. I'm working on cleaning up the article in general, so I do hope to add in something encyclopedic and well-sourced on the topic of gay marriage in the future. If you could point me in the right direction, I'd certainly appreciate it. Arbor8 (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I can do my best -- I'll try to collect some references soon. —GGreeneVa (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was just looking through that and it was a joke. The quotes were from Kilgore...don't know how that would translate to Kaine's positions? But I found some stuff about Kaine's dealings with LGBT rights. Kept it open and it is now a general overview of actions. Bucka Sucka (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim "In 2006, Kaine campaigned against an amendment to the Virginia State Constitution to bar same-sex marriage" is not supported at all by its citation. Stichodactyla (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

TYPO FIX

Typo fix request: "and the the Subcommittee on Seapower." has a repeated "the" to clean up

 Done Thanks, I've corrected the typo. Neutralitytalk 06:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016 - Arbitration Remedies

According to this talk page and active arbitration remedies, all editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).

With this edit, User:Neutrality violated that arbitration remedy and reinstated edits (mostly their own) that were challenged by revision.

The material added by COI editors should be removed, as required by arbitration, and consensus must be obtained before adding any of it back into the article. This is not the appropriate place to dispute the arbitration decision and not the appropriate time to flaunt it. User:Lord Roem further complicated things by supervoting and locking a preferred version of the page, which is also prohibited and flaunts the arbitration remedy listed.

Please restore the article to this version and remind editors that they must adhere to the arbitration decisions and remedies.

173.161.39.97 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hatting refuted accusation

Arbitration Enforcement Request

Editor Neutrality has a clear conflict of interest and has been reverting and otherwise reinserting challenged material into this and other political articles, in clear violation of the arbitration remedies listed at the top of this talk page. I have requested enforcement of the arbitration remedies and asked that the editor be immediately barred from further editing current political articles. Please see the enforcement request for additional details. Thank you.

173.161.39.97 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally avoid getting involved in disputes, but I'll make an exception here. With respect to this article alone--I have not researched others--I see no problem with edits by Neutrality.
I find the logic behind this charge against Neutrality interesting: "The editor acted on this article alone with clear prior knowledge of very closely held political information." I did some work on Tom Vilsack recently, but no other likely VP choice. Does that say anything about my insider status or lack thereof?
A few years ago, while reading about the papal conclave then under way, I decided to read a bit more about a candidate I found interesting. I made some edits to what was then a rather short entry largely written by someone whose first language was not English. When the name Bergoglio was announced in St. Peter's Square as part of a proclamation in Latin, I understood it before the newscasters even announced it. I had edited no other entry for anyone papabile. Did I have inside knowledge? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I have closed the request with "Only autoconfirmed users can file AE requests plus the request has no merit." --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Demonstrate that the user has a conflict of interest or made unwise edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the arbitration enforcement request (which User:NeilN correctly closed as IPs cannot file such requests, my error) was NOT about COI. It was a request to enforce the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES listed at the top of this talk page. Specifcally, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).". Numerous editors have challenged material by removing it, and Neutrality has reverted or otherwise restored that material with zero discussion, let alone consensus. The remedies should be enforced evenly they are not. 173.161.39.97 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
173.161.39.97: This request is ridiculous. The reversions that Neutrality made to this article were not contentious; they were for an assortment of things, stylistic improvements, removing unsourced information, etc. If you believe a particular series of edits violated the restrictions, please provide diffs; without specific evidence, your accusations are worse than worthless. As for your charge of a "clear conflict of interest", I have been working on many of the same articles as Neutrality, and I have been so impressed by their diligence and, yes, neutrality that I recently gave them a barnstar for their work on one of them. Neutrality's editing is so neutral that I can't even tell what "conflict of interest" you are accusing them of; what side do you imagine they are favoring? Please drop your crusade against Neutrality and stop making unsupported allegations. You are approaching the point of making personal attacks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
173.161.39.97: I can't make heads or tails of what you are actually trying to say. Drop the nonsense and the false statements. Neutralitytalk 17:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I thank MelanieN, Snooganssnoogans, and Bmclaughlin9 for their comments - this IP address's campaign of harassment is, of course, is totally ridiculous. I've edited for about a decade now (10 years!) on a wide variety of topics, from food to politics to history to science. Never accepted a dime for my edits.
I had no "closely held political information" — everything I've gotten has been from the mass media. (James G. Stavridis and Kaine, some of the articles, were both widely reported to be "veepstakes" contenders, and so naturally I've worked on their articles, which were of varying degrees of quality). Neutralitytalk 17:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I added the AE notification tags at 05:35, 23 July 2016,[2][3] which of course was in response to Hillary Clinton selecting Kaine as her running mate. I noticed that all the diffs and edits that this IP has cited were made BEFORE I applied the tags. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Restore ratings by interest groups and reliable secondary sources (538)

Content was removed that put Kaine's voting behavior in context: how he compares to US politicians, fellow Democrats and how interest groups rate him. I'd like to see it restored because it is very helpful content and AFAIK the kind of content we commonly see on politicians' wiki pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

DrCruse has removed more similar content . I'd like to ask him to restore it. He also removed perfectly acceptable content where Kaine's position on sex ed is clarified. I completely disagree with putting gender equality under the LGBT section. Using the talk page because I don't want to get sanctioned for edit warring (is it really the case that you shouldn't revert edits, even if perfectly reasonable?) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The user just removed Kaine's explanation for overseeing executions despite opposing them. Not OK.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey I'd be happy to explain some of the edits I've made. I removed a lot of the third party "we approve or disapprove of this candidate" because I did not see much similar content (certainly not to the same extent) on Mike Pence, Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton's pages. Hillary Clinton's page is featured, but does not reference FiveThirtyEight or the NRA's ratings, for example. I lumped LGBT and Gender issues together because they overlap (the T in LGBT is a gender issue) and because there was very little content in the gender section. I also removed a lot of Kaine quotes where they seemed redundant or overly partisan (if the article said "Kaine supports X. He said: 'X is really great, it's of great value to our communities.'" I would remove the second sentence because it adds nothing to the article.) Perhaps I was a touch overzealous, and I would be happy to clarify the part about executions if you want. --DrCruse (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh I only now see this discussion...after I restored some info... Gandydancer (talk)
I'm not sure there was too much redundant content in the quotes that were removed. I don't want to lump the gender pay gap and other women's rights issues together with LGBT issues. You wouldn't expect to see a candidate's position on the gender pay gap, gender-equal cabinets, maternal leave, women in the military, take on feminism etc. under a LGBT heading. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've restored some of this content (deleted by DrCruse) pending further discussion. (Gandydancer had previously restored another set of content deleted by DrCruse).
Some of the edits, I think, were not improvements. We should be careful to follow what the sources say, and some of the language was changed to go beyond what the source (specifically this source) says.
With respect to these three edits in particular: the source says "combat-style weapons," not "semiautomatic rifles"; refers to "gun shows" specifically, not all private sales; and refers to suspected terrorists on the No Fly List, not "members" of the No Fly List (how can one be a "member" of a list? Doesn't make sense grammatically, even)
Now, these edits may be accurate, but if we are to change the content, we need a reference specifically in support of the revised language. Neutralitytalk 22:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As for the ratings and scales: 538 is helpful, I think, because it's a somewhat objective and all-encompassing measure of ideology. The individual interest groups ratings are less significant, but still somewhat informative - I'm open to persuasion as to their value/lack of value. Neutralitytalk 22:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Just want to chime in and support the reversion of almost all of that string of edits unless we go one by one. I fail to see how much of that is "loaded/non-neutral political language." For example I don't see how "weapons sold by private citizens" is loaded, or how changing it to "weapons sold in privates sales" makes any difference to its neutrality. The second version is also problematic because it uses the word "sold/sale" redundantly, and it changes the meaning significantly' - "private sales" sounds like it was just sold by a regulated business as opposed to an individual person ("private citizen"). There may be a case to be made on some of the edits though. For example "suspected terrorists on the no-fly list" is redundant, so I can see why you'd remove "suspected terrorists." It may be better to change that particular sentence to "...bar weapon sales to people on the no-fly list because he wants to keep suspected terrorists from obtaining them," because it's important to explain the intent of his position (which is really about the "suspected terrorists" part, not the "no-fly list" part. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

TYPO FIX

Under Budget and economy, change "national employment rate which rose from 4.7% to 9.9%" to "national unemployment rate which rose from 4.7% to 9.9%"

Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

TYPO FIX

Reference 60, change "Dmoking" to "Smoking"

Allijean (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Tim Kaine took $160,000 worth of gifts while in office

However,Tim Kaine did receive an $18,000 Caribbean vacation, $5,500 in clothes and trip to the NCAA basketball tournament.

The gifts were under Virginia's relatively relaxed gift laws.

You The Reader Decide?

(70.39.15.6 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

Reference? --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Or how about we the editors decide whether or not to just delete this sort of junk? Carptrash (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC), who will not vote for Kaine in November
Yes please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Here. Note I am taking no position on this content as an editor. --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
That link goes to this statement, " took $160,000 worth of legal gifts " (my highlight). What is the point of posting it if it is legal? It's just smear stuff, of which we shall be seeing lot more. Let's try and focus on things that are NOT legal or go against what he claims to do and that sort of thing. This is going to be an ugly few months until November in American politics, let us keep our guard up. Carptrash (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. It appears the gifts were legal under Virginia law. Note also that the $160,000 was spread out over 8 years ($20,000 a year doesn't sound so attention-grabbing, does it?) and that his spokesman says he disclosed everything, even gifts below the reporting threshold. I don't see a story here, and I don't see the kind of widespread coverage that would justify including it. Reconsider if it becomes a widely reported issue later. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The story has received some press coverage in recent months for two reasons 1) His successor Gov. McDonnell was convicted for taking unreported gifts (by contrast Kaine's gifts were reported) and 2) Kaine was long rumored to be a top contender for Clinton's VP.
Trump has already brought up the issue on twitter. I suspect the story will reappear a few times over the coming days. I checked to see where it appeared before the VP announcement and in addition to Politico, I also found ABC News CNN and CBS News. I think it is ok to include provided it is carefully worded to reflect what actually happened including that the gifts were legal and he reported more than was required, and what is added should be well sourced. Maybe test out possible variations here on the talk page before adding to the article? Knope7 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Since it has received coverage in mainstream media following Kaine's selection as VP candidate, we should mention it. Certainly we should state that receiving the gifts was legal. But legal does not necessarily mean it was a wise course of action. TFD (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Readers may reasonably expect this subject to be covered here. Carefully. Thus "Under VA law, officeholders may accept certain gifts. Kaine did so at times, examples. Critics, without reference to legality, have called this ..." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You're right. How about something like this, as the last paragraph of the "Governor" section: "During his 8 years as lieutenant governor and governor of Virginia, Kaine disclosed reported that he received a total of $160,000 worth of "gifts", mostly in the form of travel to and from events. Such gifts are legal under Virginia law as long as they are disclosed. A spokesman said that Kaine "went beyond the requirements of Virginia law, even publicly disclosing gifts of value beneath the reporting threshold." The Republican National Committee indicated they intend to make an issue of these gifts during the election." That's based on the ABC News story linked above. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
A start. I changed one word. Hope it's ok to modify your text as I have.
Since this is going under his years as governor, the evaluations (spokesman/RNC) should be replaced with comparable comments made during his time as governor. As written, this is suitable for a WP entry about the campaign. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I would like to put it in the governor section if possible. But I don't think anyone raised it as an issue while he was governor or while he was running for senator; the gifts were legal and were normal practice in Virginia. How about, "In 2016 after Kaine was nominated for vice president, the Republican National Committee indicated they intend to make an issue of these gifts during the election." ?--MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The defense of the gifts dates to 2016 as does the RNC statement of intent. I'd exclude both. I also hate the phrase "a total of $160,000" when we only need to say "$160,000". So I'd try:

While lieutenant governor and governor of Virginia, Kaine reported accepting $160,000 worth of "gifts", which were legal under Virginia law if disclosed. Most of the money covered travel expenses for official business or campaigning.[1] No one accused him of promising to use his office in return.[2][a] He later supported restrictions on gifts, writing: "Gifts to elected officials can create a subconscious sense of gratitude in even the most upright public servants."[3]

  1. ^ Rogin, Ali (June 30, 2016). "Possible Hillary Clinton VP Pick Under Scrutiny for Past Gifts". ABC News. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  2. ^ a b "Kaine's acceptance of gifts in Virginia could create opening for Republicans". Washington Post. July 22, 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2016. Kaine has never faced accusations of promising state action in exchange for any of his gifts.
  3. ^ Kaine, Tim (December 31, 2013). "Give Virginia the gift of strong ethics laws". Washington Post. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  1. ^ The acceptance of gifts by Virginia officials became the subject of controversy when Kaine's successor, Governor Robert F. McDonnell, was accused of using his office in return for gifts and loans that he had not disclosed.[2]
Too much? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. If the Republicans bring it up during the campaign that could go in the "election" section. I would like to begin with "During his 8 years as lieutenant governor and governor" since that puts the amount in much better perspective. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. You may or may not need "of Virginia". Your call. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead and add it (if no-one objects). I'm going to be gone for a few days so don't wait for me to chime in on anything; just go ahead and reach consensus and do it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ordering within sections: Political positions, governor of Indiana

I think these should be ordered in alphabetical order. That's how we do it on the 'Political Positions of HRC", 'Political Positions of Trump" pages, and have apparently tried to at the "Mike Pence" page. It would be really difficult to navigate the page otherwise (both for editors and readers). As more sections will be created (this page will be smack-full of them in two weeks' time), the order according to importance will get screwed up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I think the issue of too many sections can be solved by grouping sections together. I thought about grouping a few of them together when I made that edit, such as grouping abortion, LGBT, & gender (of which I see the last two have been merged now) under a "Gender and sexuality" heading, Guns & Crime with Death Penalty under a "Criminal Justice" or "Justice system" heading, and then perhaps Financial regulation, Taxes, & Trade under an "Economy" heading, but I thought that would be too much of a change and someone would just revert it.
That said, I wouldn't be outright opposed to putting them in alphabetical order. I just think more grouping of the sections would mitigate the size/navigatability issue (editors would think to put an economic position in the "Economy" section for example), and putting the sections he's most notable for at the top gives the reader an idea about which of his positions are the most notable because most people would assume the more "important" sections would be listed towards the top. By the way, I measured the notability of each section by word count and number of sources used. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
We could do broad groupings ("Social and domestic policy"; "Economic policy"; "Foreign and military policy") and set off individual sub-issues with boldface type within each grouping. Neutralitytalk 21:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea MidnightRequestLine (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change of the lead paragraph

I propose a change of the lead paragraph from:
"...is an American attorney and politician serving as the junior United States Senator from Virginia. A member of the Democratic Party, Kaine was elected to the Senate in 2012 and is the nominee of the Democratic Party for Vice President of the United States in the 2016 election."
to
"...is an American politician and attorney, the Democratic Party nominee for Vice President of the United States, in the 2016 election. He has been serving as the junior United States Senator from Virginia since 2012."2605:6000:EF88:7500:C401:9AF1:9F2C:5C95 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

those dad jokes

Should something about'em be added to the "Personality and style" section [4]?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be worthy a very brief mention. Politico reported that "Kaine projected the image of a suburban dad..." at his convention speech (link), while Rich Lowry of the National Review described him "the aggressively normal Tim Kaine, a career politician who has maintained the affect of a suburban dad..." (link). Neutralitytalk 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Tim Kaine Succeeded by...

Kaine was not succeeded by Donna. That's his successor's successor. He was succeeded by Debbie Wasserman Schultz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expiscor32 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct; corrected. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Omeish appointment and resignation

This material was removed with the comment "remove per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP":

Kaine appointed Esam Omeish to the Virginia Commission on Immigration, which was examining whether Virginia should do more to restrict illegal immigration. In September 2007, Omeish resigned as a commission member—as requested by Kaine—three hours after remarks made by Omeish on a call-in show on WRVA radio in Richmond were brought to Kaine's attention, specifically his criticisms of the Israel lobby and call for Bush's impeachment on account of the Iraq War. In addition, Omeish appeared in an undated video addressing Washington area Muslims "...you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."[1] "I have been made aware of certain statements he has made which concern me," Kaine said in accepting Omeish's resignation. Kaine added that background checks would be more thorough in the future.[2]

  1. ^ Virginia Governor Tim Kaine Accepts Resignation of Controversial Appointee, FOX News, September 27, 2007, accessed December 9, 2009]
  2. ^ "Immigration official resigns after 'jihad' remark". September 27, 2007.

The paragraph has since been restored (improperly since we are editing under discretionary sanctions) and removed at least twice more, and along the way has been edited by folks unaware of the interim removals and restorations, including me. This is the most recently removed version:

On August 2, 2007, Kaine appointed Esam Omeish to the 20-member Virginia Commission on Immigration, which was examining whether Virginia should do more to restrict illegal immigration. On September 27, 2007, Kane requested and received Omeish's resignation three hours after learning that Omeish, while participating in a call-in show on WRVA radio in Richmond, had criticized the Israel lobby and called for Bush's impeachment on account of the Iraq War. In addition, Omeish had appeared in an undated video addressing Washington area Muslims "...you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."[1] "I have been made aware of certain statements he has made which concern me," Kaine said in accepting Omeish's resignation. Kaine added that background checks would be more thorough in the future.[2]

  1. ^ "Virginia Governor Tim Kaine Accepts Resignation of Controversial Appointee". FOX News. September 27, 2007. Retrieved December 9, 2009.
  2. ^ "Immigration official resigns after 'jihad' remark". NBC News. Associated Press. September 27, 2007. Retrieved July 23, 2016.

Because we are editing under discretionary sanctions as explained above, it can only be restored if we have consensus. I think it should be restored. Your thoughts? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw no reason for removing that content. I'm interested to hear what the rationale was. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging User:Volunteer Marek who twice removed it and User:CFredkin who twice restored it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we cover this in two sentences? I can see it being included, but a paragraph seems a bit much. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy removing this material which is antecedent to the appointment, more Omeish's back story:

In addition, Omeish had appeared in an undated video addressing Washington area Muslims "...you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
And perhaps this qualifier as well, since the precise responsibility of the Commission doesn't matter:

, which was examining whether Virginia should do more to restrict illegal immigration

And we needn't include the precise radio station. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Either remove it or keep it to one sentence, per User:Neutrality. It's way too much UNDUE weight, especially in a BLP. And wording such as "Israel lobby" is POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for being specific about the POV issue. I note that User:Neutrality said two sentences, not one. Reviewing the sourcing, I also see that it was Kaine who participated on the radio show and there learned about Omeish from someone who called in -- all of which is quite irrelevant. Here's the two-sentence text I propose:

On September 27, 2007, just weeks after appointing Esam Omeish to the 20-member Virginia Commission on Immigration, Kane learned that Omeish had made videos accusing Israel of genocide and calling for the impeachment of President Bush.[1] Kaine requested and received Omeish's resignation and said that background checks would be more thorough in the future.[2]

  1. ^ "Virginia Governor Tim Kaine Accepts Resignation of Controversial Appointee". FOX News. September 27, 2007. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  2. ^ "Immigration official resigns after 'jihad' remark". NBC News. Associated Press. September 27, 2007. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
All editors are welcome to comment, of course. Pinging User:Volunteer Marek, User:CFredkin, User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Neutrality, User:MelanieN. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion of the merits of the two sentences generally, I would note that it might be helpful to include the word "immediately" before the word "requested" — the controversial statement and the resignation occurred within hours of each other. Neutralitytalk 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm OK with this draft. Although it is kind of ancient history, the subject seems to have gotten enough coverage to justify including it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. Lots of bits in a bio are ancient history, AKA history, like spending on the Million Man March. Still of interest. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Million Mom March, nor Million Man March—quite different! Neutralitytalk 00:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Jesuit Volunteer Corps internationally

The Jesuit Volunteer Corps did not have non-domestic (non-US) postings in 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.117.186 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The Jesuit Volunteer Corps did not have non-domestic (non-US) postings in 1981. Tim Kaine was a volunteer with a group of Jesuit priests in Honduras, not with the Jesuit International Volunteers (now Jesuit Volunteers International) which did not yet exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.117.186 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Our source says Jesuit Volunteer Corps and you've provided no alternatives. I'll try to research this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I've modified our account. It's clear he went before this program worked internationally and volunteered in Honduras without any "sponsoring organization" aside from his hosts. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources as to his high school

From https://rockhursths.edu/pages/news/news---senator-tim-kaine-selected Senator Kaine grew up in Overland Park, Kan. and attended Rockhurst High School, where he excelled in academics and speech and debate. These formative years at Rockhurst, Senator Kaine has noted, were integral to his belief in public service. A service trip to Honduras opened his eyes to the importance of being a "man for others."

From http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/read_full_text_of_tim_kaines_speech_at_dnc_2016.html I went to a Jesuit boys school – Rockhurst High School. The motto of our school was 'men for others.' That's where my faith became vital, a North Star for orienting my life. And I knew that I wanted to fight for social justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.177.161 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We already report his high school days in standard fashion for a political bio. The material you provide might prove useful for what we have under "Personal life", though there are plenty of sources for the roots of his personal commitment, including the C-SPAN interview already cited with respect to his time in Honduras. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Tim Kaine RFC

Some editors here may be interested in an RFC at Talk:Kaine (disambiguation) on whether "Kaine" should direct (as it presently does) to comic book character Kaine, to the disambig page, or to the Democratic nominee for VP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

When did his family settle in America?

Is anyone able to find reliable sources about his ancestry? When did his family emigrate from Scotland/Ireland to the United States? Where did they first settle?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I have found this.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
How reliable is that site? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election.

I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

ABC News source for VP pick

I'd like to add this sentence to the end of the first paragraph of Tim_Kaine#2016_vice_presidential_campaign which discusses Clinton's choice of running mate:

Email allegedly obtained from a hack of John Podesta's email account suggested Clinton had already chosen Kaine as her running mate by July 2015.[1][2]

  1. ^ Parks, Maryalice. "What We Learned From the Purported John Podesta Emails From WikiLeaks". abcnews.go.com. ABC News.
  2. ^ https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986#efmABHAB3AB6ACN

Any objections? James J. Lambden (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think this adds anything of encyclopedic value to the article and the suggestion to include appears to be an attempt to WP:COATRACK Wikileaks into this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Your objection should perhaps be expanded upon. The focus of the paragraph is the process that resulted in her choice of running mate; this does seem to be relevant to that focus, more so than the existing comment on alternates, which apparently is misinformed. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. Obviously important. We don't just obediently parrot what the media oligarchy is told to publish by the political duopoly's PR machines. ( Or do we? ) Worthy of note are the large number of prestigious journalism awards that have been bestowed upon it, which speak to the reliable nature of the work of Wikileaks. We mustn't cover up its reporting. It's a reliable secondary source for the source material it publishes. The proposed article text doesn't even contain the word Wikileaks; Marek's allegation is without foundation. WP:NOTCENSORED. --Elvey(t•c) 07:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I read the sources. They do not suggest Clinton made her decision a year ago, merely that at one person thought she had. Unless this develops into an issue and observers and participants weigh in, it seems trivial. TFD (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

LT Governor

I think Kaine's time as LT Governor of Virginia should be expanded upon. Currently the section covers the election and his swearing in but any account of his actions as LT Gov is absent. I tried to find some sources but some Virginia papers don't include archives that go back far enough. Can anyone please help find some source material to expand this section? I assume the section will remain fairly sparse as LT Gov is not one of the most consequential positions he held, however, I do think we should have something there to categorize his time in office. Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2016 - Religion in Personal Details section

The infobox on many U.S. politicians' pages includes the religion. Please add Tim Kaine's religion to the personal details section of the infobox. As stated in the Political Positions section, he is a Roman Catholic:

|religion = Roman Catholicism

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure why this wasn't already the case. Should be included. Moonboy54 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Be BOLD and make the edit if this is appropriate. — Andy W. (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Political positions/tenure as Governor

I'm working on cleaning up this article and I'm having some trouble improving/expanding the "Political Positions" section without duplicating a lot of the content from the section about his tenure as governor. Is the Governor section too detailed? I'd like to include notable news items and examples in the "political positions" section to avoid turning it into a regurgitation of his campaign site. Does that make sense? Arbor8 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Does it make any sense to say Kaine was praised for his response to the VA Tech tragedy without delving into the issue of whether campus security guards were unarmed before the incident and whether they are unarmed today? Or does Political Correctness forbid any discussion of this extremely salient issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tim Kaine. 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) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019

Change two sentences in the introduction's last paragraph, as follows:

Hillary Clinton announced on July 22, 2016, that she had selected Kaine to be her vice presidential running mate, and the 2016 Democratic National Convention nominated him on July 27. Despite winning a plurality of the national popular vote, the Clinton-Kaine ticket lost the Electoral College, and thus the election, to the Republican ticket of Donald Trump and Mike Pence on November 8, 2016. Kaine sought re-election to a second Senate term in 2018, defeating Republican Corey Stewart. 49.36.13.113 (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, just to be clear, no new sources should be needed as the proposed paragraph says the same thing, but with fewer redundant phrases. 49.36.13.113 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 Not done. Doesn't seem to be an improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Deacon Vorbis could you explain why? 49.36.13.113 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I should ask you the same question. This just seems to remove a small amount of context for no apparent reason. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, happy to answer: good writing style asks for redundant words and phrases to be trimmed away, and in this case the two textual references I'm removing - to the 2016 presidential election, and to Mr Kaine remaining in the Senate - are redundant given the surrounding context. 49.36.13.113 (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done. I find the changes consistent with the Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment. The first paragraph of the lede already states he was the vice presidential nominee in the 2016 election, and that he had been and is a senator, so the repetition seems unnecessary. Deacon Vorbis, I don't mind you reverting if you feel this warrants more discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bsherr: thanks! I had the some astonishment essay in mind during the discussion, but I hesitated to actually mention or link to it because it reads a little condescendingly IMHO. Good to know people agree with that essay, LOL. 49.36.13.113 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Youngest son

I removed a bit about Tim Kaine's youngest son being arrested given that: "No charges were filed against Kaine or the other protesters who were detained due to 'insufficient facts to prove felony-level riot,' according to the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office." (link). Given this, and the fact that this appears to be a one-off incident, I find no long-term significance sufficient to include in the biography of the father. Neutralitytalk 22:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe Tim Kaine and his wife put out a statement, which starts to look a little more relevant. I do agree it is not enough at this time. If it becomes an issue that Tim Kaine continues to have to address, then it might be worth adding later. Knope7 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I would leave it out. we don't even mention Billy Carter in the Jimmy Carter article except to say he was his brother. TFD (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the text as I agree that details of an incident regarding a son are undue in this article. That would apply in any article, but is particularly valid in a WP:BLP of a politician where there should be no impression of coatracking family issues to convey negativity on the subject of the article. If the reader is supposed to learn something about Tim Kaine from the text, a reliable secondary source writing about Tim Kaine should be found. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Charges have been filed:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/linwood-kaine-tim-kaines-son-among-8-charged-for-allegedly-disrupting-pro-trump-rally/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politics/tim-kaine-son-charged/

http://www.twincities.com/2017/05/26/tim-kaines-son-woody-kaine-charged-with-7-others-who-crashed-trump-rally/

71.182.248.127 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for providing sources. Personally I still don't think this is enough to include in the article. It's a minor incident that is not directly about Tim Kaine, perhaps it is slightly more relevant for the fact that the son was disrupting a Trump rally. I'd be open to hearing other thoughts about whether this should be included at this time. Knope7 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I share the sentiments expressed by most in here. Biographical articles often mention immediate family members, and I'd argue statements like, "[Subject] has two sons currently attending Virginia Tech" or "[Subject] has a daughter, [name], who works as a dentist in the U.S. Air Force" are - just barely - acceptable, as they are technically still focused on the main subject and their family. They can be found frequently in articles or official biographies about the subject. Random incidents like this involving notable peoples' children are reported on frequently and don't belong in a biography of the parent, even in cases like this that got a bit more coverage than is typical. If Woody ever gets his own article, it certainly can be included there, just like David Huckabee's youthful exploits are mentioned in his. Rockhead126 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dogs returning to vomit? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppulence76. (Neutrality, you might have an interest in this.) Drmies (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I just arrived at the page to add thin info about teh arrest of Kaine's younger son. Because as I was editing I could see that a source about the arrest was already on the page, I added "se talk" to the edit note. Then arrived here to find that it is already being discussed. What I was intending to write, and do maintain, is that it is POV to have info about the Kaine son who is serving in the Marines, and omit a well-sourced news story about the younger son (who "scuffled" with arresting police attempting to arrest him for being with a group - presumably antifa inside the Minnesota State Capitol building throwing fireworks and similar as a protest. I think we have to include it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted. There's no consensus here. The text you added was excessive weight (does the son's college, year of graduation, and major really matter? Note that we don't include that for any of his children). The claim that this must be included because we include text about the elder son being a Marine is inapt. Someone's job `would seem to be far more noteworthy than the fact that someone has been charged (charged, not convicted!) with a misdemeanor. Neutralitytalk 00:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Error in the wording of climate change verbiage

By stating that Tim Kaine "acknowledges" the supposed scientific consensus on climate change, this article implies that there IS such a consensus. That is clearly refutable. Over 300 climate researchers have signed on to a memorandum stating that they disagree with at least some portion of the statement that climate change is real, and that it is caused by human activity. Hardly a "consensus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40E:8100:EEA:503E:5D6A:E727:7C6 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there is clearly not a consensus since only seventy percent of all Americans accept that climate change is happening. [1] Bluewolverine123 (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Scientific consensus is not measured by polling the American public; it is measured by polling qualified relevant scientists. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Americans Who Accept Climate Change Outnumber Those Who Don't 5 to 1". Yale E360.

Recent section additions

Nearly all of the recent additions seem to be based on a primary source, Kaine's own paper. Has there been any substantial coverage of this in secondary sources? GMGtalk 21:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The section that the new editor had added was undoubtedly overlong, but I think mentioning the article in a sentence or two would be appropriate. Does anyone have an objection to that? Neutralitytalk 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Umm... I mean I would probably prefer if there was some secondary coverage available to judge the relative due weight. But I'm stuck on mobile editing on smoke breaks for the time being. I'm not opposed in principle in any way.GMGtalk 22:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The recent additions (note: I refer to the "grand strategy and democracy position" subsection) are supported by three sources, only one of which is a link to Kaine's paper. They are not all based on a 'primary' source.
At the same time, as a newcomer to wikipedia editing -- but not a newcomer to academic research -- I find it suspect that editors here are rejecting clear, unequivocal information coming from a 'primary' source. The argument that a 'secondary' source is more valid than a primary one for a publicly stated policy position is absurd. Extending the same logic, tertiary sources should be favored over secondary, quaternary over tertiary, and the longer the string of interposed media and academic intermediaries, the closer one would be to the truth. Is this what Wikipedia is all about?
In support of the rejection of primary source material, the 'no original research' (NOR) alarm bell has been loudly rung. I have gone to WP:NOR to check what the actual policy is. In the article, it states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
So... has there been any "interpretation" of Kaine's published material in the recent additions -- such as a distortion of his published positions, a synthesis that goes beyond his statements, a reinterpretation of what he's declared publicly? If an editor has evidence that this is the case, that should be the focus of the edit! -- on correcting the misconstrued and, when impossible, eliminating the unverifiable. But to eliminate wholesale under the whimsical rubric of 'cherry-picking' is clearly perverse.
I am currently blocked from reverting the recent additions again (I am allowed only one revert, it seems), but I hope someone reading this will understand the importance of putting that information back and giving it the due attention that it deserves. The contributor obviously spent some time putting the material together and it is repugnant to see it all summarily rejected under such a ridiculous pretense.Fullbound (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
To whomever lifted the block, thanks.Fullbound (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I am the user who added the sections on grand strategy and Latin America. I would just note in addition to what has been said about the value of primary sources that this particular essay is central to Kaine's foreign policy belief. Because it is a grand strategy, it attempts to encompass everything, so it is definitely a more significant aspect of his foreign policy than say, a committee vote on a specific military operation. Also, there are some secondary sources discussing Kaine's essay, but I thought it was more informative to hear Kaine describing his foreign policy than a punit describing Kaine describing his foreign policy. One such secondary source is here: https://www.americanagora.org/single-post/2017/09/28/The-Democrats-Internal-Foreign-Policy-Debate-Explained — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F3F0:C480:AC30:8061:5B5C:F32D (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
...Well... the Freedom House source doesn't appear to mention Kaine at all. So something's not quite right. And no, it's not clear that we should be uncritically giving such relative weight to what does appear to be a essentially a personal essay, and a talk about a personal essay. GMGtalk 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
In some cases that would make sense. But we need to remember what we are talking about here. This section of the article is about Kaine’s political positions. I think it’s self evident that the most authoritative source on Kaine’s political positions is Kaine himself. To suggest otherwise is a bit nonsensical. Now, it could possibly be argued that this addition should not be given that much weight because of its content matter (which I have previously addressed). I also suggest you read the article if you have not already; it helps to know what we are talking about when deciding what content should matter. But that is all a separate issue than the fact that this is a personal essay. What’s more, of all personal essays, this one is among the most authoritative because of the consideration that would go into such a long piece in a prestigious medium like Foreign Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F3F0:C480:55AF:737C:6E23:9A28 (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Senate committee assignments and caucus

Someone should include his current Senate assignments in compliance with table format in other senators' articles. Pr4ever (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Healthcare and public health

The "Healthcare and public health" section of the article claims that Virginia, in 2009, was the first Southern state to ban smoking in bars and restaurants "with some exceptions". However, Florida banned smoking in restaurants and bars "with some exceptions", in 2003. The claim is quoted from a cited article, which also provides a questionable description of the bill.

Neither Florida nor Virginia outright bans smoking in bars. The "exceptions" in Florida are bars attributing 10% or less of revenues to food sales, as described here. The "exceptions" in Virginia are bars with a separate structure, separately ventilated, dedicated to smoking. The significance of Florida's moves toward banning or limiting smoking 6 years prior to Virginia should not be downplayed or ignored by the Kaine article.

Recommended Resolution Options:

  • Remove the dubious statement as it was likely mentioned in the cited article solely to sensationalize the signing of the bill.
  • Clarify the "with some exceptions" portion of the statement to specify that Virginia was the first Southern State to ban smoking in all bars without a separate dedicated smoking structure.
  • Specify that Virginia was the second Southern State to ban smoking in bars "with exceptions" (and perhaps mention Florida).
  • In any case, change the citation to the Wikipedia article on List of Smoking Bans in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbayer (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Dates Messed Up

The dates in Kaine’s infobox are largely messed up and need to be corrected. Crazy Jay Fox (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Kaine/Archive_1&oldid=1094619496"