Jump to content

Talk:Tom Corbett

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

Move request

[edit]

There is a move request in process Tom Corbett, Space Cadet → Tom Corbett - see Talk:Tom Corbett, Space Cadet. -- Beardo 01:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

The recent photo that was added referencing USASearch.gov is not a free public domain image of the US Government. I clicked on the link provided and got to this page. The notice at the top clearly states "The images you find in USA.gov’s Image Search results may be protected by copyright. If you would like to use any images you find through USA.gov’s Image Search, we advise you to contact the site owner for permission." Indeed, the page is a re-direct to the Attorney Generals website TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Therealgrannymiller edit

[edit]

I removed accusations that use non reliable blogs for citation.Boromir123 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Jobs are there" controversy

[edit]

I initially deleted one unsources assertion, but I'm thinking the whole section should go. I'm not sure the statement he made rises to the level of a bio entry... in the absence of history proving it some kind of defining moment in his life (which could theoretically happen, but hasn't yet). I'm sure he's said a lot of things, and this is one of them, but it seems to be given undue weight in his bio. John2510 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wound up abbreviating it and rolling it into the gubernatorial election section. Unless the issue flares up and is considered decisive, it should probably be deleted at some point. John2510 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted it caused an uproar. He made the remark and it came back to bite him. If he is your candidate, fine. But don't try to sugar coat him or what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.183.110 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with sticking with what he said... but let's do that. Even so, it needs to be given due weight in the context of his personal bio. and not to violate wp:undue. I'm not trying to delete or sugar coat it... just trying to keep it accurate and consistent with wp:npov. The cited source references "some" unemployed... not "the" unemployed, and that's what should be in the article. John2510 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John2510. Section was written in a biased manner. I tried to streamline it and edit "the unemployed" statement. Should be written in a neutral manner.Boromir123 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm returning the "the" to "some" to conform to source, and removing the campaign ad as a source. I'm not seeing anywhere, even in the ad, where he said, “People don’t want to come back to work, while they still have unemployment. The jobs are there.” If it can be found in a non-campaign-ad source, I'm good with putting it back. John2510 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/98157544.html http://articles.mcall.com/2010-07-09/news/mc-pennsylvania-corbett-unemployment-20100709-12_1_unemployment-rate-tom-corbett-business-owners Here they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.55.72 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote (“People don’t want to come back to work, while they still have unemployment. The jobs are there.”) doesn't appear in either of those sources. John2510 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the clip from a nws broadcast that you keep insist gets deleted, so you can hide it was said. http://kdka.com/politics/Onorato.Corbett.unemployment.2.1802758.html

No. In point of fact, it's not. Find a quote from that article, and use the article as a source (versus a campaign ad) it it will be properly sourced John2510 (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is sourced. KDKA and philly.com are reputable sources. I deleted the youtube link.

KDKA didn't say what you had in the previous edit. BTW... Your change here was apprarently nothing but vandalism, and was properly reverted. John2510 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and pasted what was in the links, plus I have MP3s of the interview when he said it. You work for his campaign there is no hiding that, or it wouldn't be an issue for you to keep changing it. Plus the audio is right in the KDKA articile in the video link. It IS AN EXACT QUOTE.

It wasn't a correct quote, but you apparently have issues with understanding and writing in English (e.g., "You work for his campaign there is no hiding that" is two sentences). I don't work for the campaign. I don't even live in PA. Would you care to offer a justification for vandalizing the poll results on the election page? John2510 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, you fucking piece of garbage. I hope you get shot in the face.


Wow. I've reported this to the appropriate authorities. IP addresses are easily traced, and ISP's record the users assigned an IP address at a given time. This came from a Verizon IP address in the Pittsburgh area. They won't have any trouble locating him. John2510 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of Wikipedia's response, admins responded quickly appropriately: both articles have been protected and his IP has been blocked. They also restored the article to the previous version where the paragraph in question was deleted. John2510 (talk)
In fairness, I've restored this paragraph to the previous version. I think it has an appropriate level of detail for wp:blp. If people are curious and want to know more about it, they can follow the references. I suspect that after the election it should be removed from the bio completely... but that question can be addressed at the time. John2510 (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Reinstein96, 4 October 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I don't believe his son is writing a book called Sparkles And The Magical Double-Crossed Beaver.

Reinstein96 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. I wondered about that.... It was unsourced and added by an IP account. I googled it and couldn't find any reference anywhere. If there's anything to it, it can be added back. John2510 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty... then I guess this is Done elektrikSHOOS 00:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order.

[edit]

He is listed as the 46th Attorney General but his immediate predecessor from when he took office in 2005 is listed as the 44th. One is wrong, I can’t figure out which. The more I think about it all of them are screwed up as I look down the list of PA AG's. Does anyone know the correct ordering? Thanks.--Politicsislife (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Gas

[edit]

It should be noted that natural gas is an unsustainable fossil fuel that is expected to be depleted (at it's present demand rate) within the next 70 years as stated in reference. If the PA Republicans have their way with requiring transit authorities to run on natural gas, it will be depleted even quicker. I am not sure why it was removed as it is a known fact, not biased, based directly on science, and directly related to the speech Tom Corbett gave on April 7, 2011, including other television appearances where he discussed similar topics. Tom Corbett would like to believe this is some type of sustainable energy to create jobs, but even elementary students know otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.47.50 (talk • contribs)

This article is not a science only article or an anti gas use soapbox - try one of the gas articles and add content there not here, this article is about a living person called Corbett and not about the terrible running out of fossil fuels. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The whole topic is of dubious biographical value. What GOP legislators may want to do with the issue and its long term ramifications clearly don't belong here. The topic seems to follow a long-standing pattern of edits to this page by a series of sockpuppets. John2510 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discussing anti-gas use. I am stating a fact about natural gas, which relates directly to the living person called Tom Corbett, as he is making decisions related to the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania as Governor of Pennsylvania. Perhaps you do not live there and do not know what he is doing? Granted, the decisions he is making will have little affect during his life time, but will have a large impact for all future generations. If you do not agree that natural gas is an unsustainable fossil fuel, or that it does not relate to Tom Corbett, then you should remove the entire section and I will recreate it based on his speeches without any bias (which it did not have to begin with). The fact is, Tom Corbett has said in his speeches that he does not want to tax the natural gas industry because he wants their headquarters here and that he wants to create a sustainable industry and create jobs. Natural gas is not a sustainable resource, and therefore, any jobs or industry created is short term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.47.50 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I removed an unfounded claim that Corbett's impact fees generated twice the revenues that an extraction tax would generate. I cited a story about Pennsylvania's own Budget and Policy Center's conclusion that an extraction tax would have generated three times the revenue of the impact fees. I trust that someone from the Penn GOP will edit this out, so let's stay vigilant. https://www.dailylocal.com/2014/12/16/for-gov-corbett-gas-tax-a-missed-opportunity/ unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.199.246 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Energy Policy

[edit]

Decision making on his energy policy should be included. This is not soapboxing, activism, or biased, but based on fact, neutral, and all sources posted. You removed so quickly, there was no way you could have checked. It may be an environmental issue, but the environmental issue was created from a decision made by Tom Corbett, the living person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.36.71 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to add? Please present it here for consideration? Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Although Corbett's energy policy stated that he would work with DCNR and the Game Commission to ensure that Pennsylvania's state parks, game lands and forests would be protected for Pennsylvanians to enjoy during Marcellus Shale development on state land

In February 2011, Corbett repealed a 4-month-old policy designed to minimize the environmental impact of Marcellus Shale natural gas well drilling in Pennsylvania state parks. According to the former director of DCNR, the policy repeal could hurt recreation and the environment in a number of state parks in the western part of the state where natural gas drilling is occurring.

Recent surface water sampling in April 2011 has found elevated levels of bromide in rivers in the Western portion of the state.

this is , well, weaselly OR to say the least, elevated levels of bromide is an environmental issue that you would want to add on an environmental article not this BLP unless this living person is legally responsible for this natural disaster, . Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a natural disaster. Bromide is a chemical used in the process of natural gas well drilling. The waste water contains it. It is a man-made process. Due to the policy Corbett repealed, and the lack of regulation as whole, gas drillers are allowed to freely dump waste water containing bromide into the streams and rivers of Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.36.71 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal views and arguments on this aspect of his policy have no place in his BLP. Maybe it's an important issue. Maybe he's wrong or downright evil... but it's not biographical. If it reaches the level of being a defining issue in his administration, then that changes things. It's similar to the issue we discussed regarding his comment during the election about some people not wanting employment. John2510 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not making a personal view. It is biographical as I am only stating what his energy policy was, a decision he made related to the energy policy, and a reported impact related to that decision. Where do you see a point of view? It's just facts. Read the references. The DEP Secretary even stated that if wastewater is no longer taken to the treatment facilities that the levels of bromide would reduce significantly. DEP employees also testified to "rubber stamping" permits, but that could be added to a page for them. Also, you could read any paper in Pennsylvania and see that it is THE defining issue of his administration. Marcellus is mentioned more than 20 times in his energy policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.36.71 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, people should be aware of his energy policy and the decisions he is making during his term as governor. Calling it vandalism or activism is downright denial of the facts about this man's life and his decisions. The user reporting and calling this vandalism must be a supporter of this man. John2510 even claims you are some other user who apparently dislikes Corbett too, so he's some kind of nut ball. It's the only explanation to outright deny facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.47.50 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be classic synthesis, putting two statements in juxtaposition and drawing a conclusion (he chose not to do X and Y occurred, therefore....) Please read the linked section; we do not draw our own conclusions here. If you have a reliable source such as a newspaper or magazine reporting that Corbett's decisions led to the elevated bromide levels, please post it here on the talk page and we will talk about re-adding it to the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest removing the conclusion (last sentence) then as the rest is cited fact. There will probably be sources reporting on it in the near future to cite then. 74.212.36.71 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly renamed the section "Natural gas policy" and re-added two appropriately sourced sentences about the repeal of the parkland drilling restriction, as this was a direct initiative by Corbett and therefore relevant information for his bio. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest re-adding the quote "I want them building their headquarters here", as it was stated in his speech and in the source cited, although the domain appears broken now. Here are numerous other sources with the same quote. I also suggest correcting "the Corbett's campaign".

Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.36.71 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of this is biographical, but I can live with it. We can't have sections for every policy of every politician that strikes a chord with an editor. There's too much potential to turn pages into either smear pieces or campaign posters. At some point down the road, if it doesn't blow up into a full-fledged controversy, it should probably be stripped out as Undue. Time will tell. BTW, I believe the source attributes the "unnecessary and rundandant" comment to his spokesmen, rather than Corbett directly. John2510 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "unnecessary and redundant" quote was not Corbett's. The quote "I want them building their headquarters here" is a direct quote from Corbett in response to why he does not want to impose a severance tax and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.47.50 (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he said something doesn't make it biographical. I'm sure you can find a lot of things he said that you think cast him in a bad light. John2510 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that was his direct response for not taxing the gas industry, which is what that section is discussing. It does not cast him in a bad light as that is his reasoning and stance for not taxing the gas industry. It's not being taken out of context or anything. If I can find a recording of the speech online, you can listen to it yourself. If you think that's casting him in a bad light, then I guess he is just a bad person, because that was his exact response for not taxing the gas industry. If the quote from the spokesperson is included, which paints him in a good light, then the quote from the former DCNR director should be included, which describes how the repealed policy was protecting state park lands and the environemt and that repealing the policy could cause environmental damage. I saw him state this on television, which I believe was a response to a reporter's question. His own speech states the following "Just as the oil companies decided to headquarter in one of a dozen states with oil...let’s make Pennsylvania the Texas of the natural gas boom. I’m determined that Pennsylvania not lose this moment." 71.245.47.50 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is more expansive and meaningful than the other blurb, and I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. Again, the fact that he said something doesn't make it biographical. It's bootstrapping to say that it's relevant to this subsection, since event the subsection doesn't really rise to the level of being biographical. If a registered editor wants to add it to the paragraph, I won't object. John2510 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd like them to move their corporate headquarters here, to Pennsylvania." From around 30 minutes on he discusses why not to tax the natural gas industry. It is clear he wants the industry rooted in Pennsylvania with no taxes as an incentive for the companies to stay or move there. Exact quote is at 31:52. He further confirms it at around 50 minutes.
It should be noted that his repeal of the policy which placed a moratorium for drilling on state land is a contradiction to his energy policy, as the land is now unprotected and open for drilling. Page 9 here:

173.86.65.44 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it shouldn't. That should be noted on a forum debating the pros and cons of his qualities as a governor, not in his BLP on Wikipedia. John2510 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quote deeming it "unneccessary and redundant" should also be removed then since he did not say it. That should also be noted on a forum. It is a biased statement from a spokesperson.208.111.238.170 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're kinda making my point for me. None of this paragraph is biographical. It may prove to be, at some point down the road (for better or worse), but not yet. Trying to package it as good or bad now is inappropriate for a BLP. John2510 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

What is not neutral with the addition I made? It's a verifiable truth and the other changes were done based on discussion which you said you were fine with. Would you like it if I corrected the spelling in the quote from the spokesperson and edited as the following?

As governor, Corbett maintains that Pennsylvania should not tax the natural gas industry.[1][2] In February 2011, Corbett repealed a four month old policy regulating natural gas drilling in state park land, deeming it "unnecessary and redundant" according to a spokesperson. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party called the repeal a "payoff" to oil and gas interests which donated a million dollars to Corbett's campaign.[3] According to Corbett, "had they not given me a dime, I would still be in this position, saying we need to grow jobs in Pennsylvania," [4] further stating, "I'd like them to move their corporate headquarters here, to Pennsylvania."[5] Corbett has recently gone viral for suggesting that schools drill for natural gas to cover his proposed budget cuts to education.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmon4ward (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change for three reasons. First of all, on its face it doesn't seem neutral, but driven by an intense dislike of the subject evident in the choice of material and the phrasing. I dislike and disagree with him too, but think that gives us a special responsibility to be careful about Wikipedia neutrality requirements. Secondly, you deleted his spokeperson's statement, which was a red flag. Third, I am not sure what you meant by saying he went "viral". I appreciate your coming to the talk page to discuss this, though, and will take a look at the article you cited and see what kind of middle ground we can find here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the source, I added the assertion and reference back to the article with somewhat different wording. Please let me know what you think. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spokesperson's quote still has the misspelling and the references after the first sentence have a period between them. I think the distinction should be made that it is state park land and not just park land. The rest I am fine with. By viral, it was posted on thousands of Web sites overnight, including Fark. Never heard of viral marketing or something going viral on the Internet?Badmon4ward (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I made the two correctons. I understand "going viral" but I thought your original edit was confusingly phrased. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://republicanherald.com/news/corbett-defends-education-cuts-stance-against-taxing-gas-drilling-1.1124937
  2. ^ http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/corbett-natural-gas-tax-could-hurt-pa-1.1120608#axzz1JzOs2kTB
  3. ^ Don Hopey, "Corbett repeals policy on gas drilling in parks", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 24, 2011 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11055/1127614-455.stm Accessed April 19, 2011
  4. ^ http://www.timesleader.com/news/Corbett_refuses_to_budge_on_gas_tax_policy_04-18-2011.html
  5. ^ "Pennsylvania Goveneor Tom Corbett speaks to reporters and local business leaders at the Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce on Thursday, March 17, 2011" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y93cYNJrPw Accessed April 29, 2011
  6. ^ Amy Worden and Angela Couloumbis, "Corbett to Pa. colleges: Drill down", Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau, April 29, 2011 http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/120942889.html Accessed April 29, 2011

Removed text

[edit]

This kind of stuff is absolutely not acceptable. See WP:WEASEL and WP:BLP. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is a polical argument. It's not biographical, and a lot of it only has an indirect connection to the article subject. I'm taking it out. John2510 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your change, there is too much tangential, biased, political material here that isn't directly related to Corbett. Continue to revert anyone who readds it without editing it way down to only mention the parts directly relevant to Corbett. I think you are justified under the BLP 3RR exception. Gigs (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of information "unfavorable" to governor

[edit]

The "Controversies" section was completely deleted, an unwarranted action, as it was neutral, and contained information about the very controversial budget proposal. Wikipedia pages should not exclude information because it portrays negatively on an elected official. This is about facts, not political expediency. Cstrosser (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? When was there a "Controversies section"? What edit do you favor restoring? John2510 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"John2510, Undid revision 432048904 by Bigjoe5216 - A lot of it is unrelated to him."

Dear John,
There was quite a bit which was relevant to Corbett. Why didn't you cheerleaders just remove the stuff you thought was irrelevant and leave the info that was?
Is Tom Corbett a voting member of the DRBC? Yes he is! But who would know since you removed it?
I just wonder if John2510 is on Corbett's payroll, as editing anything which might be perceived as unfavorable to Corbett or to Natural Gas Exploration is always removed immediately.
You do however accomplish your goal - which is to frustrate people into just going away and not add any information. Corbett will get his just dues in history. Bigjoe5216 (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misquoted the edit summary, which began with, "Not BLP material." In truth, anything that was even remotely biographical was left in and negative slants were left in place. The article has become something of a smear piece - addressing only issues that opponents believe may be used to make hay in criticizing the subject (e.g., education spending and natural gas). If anyone was interested in "cheerleading" they could cherry pick his accomplishments from his campaign materials. As it stands, none of those are presented in any manner - nor are his policies on myriad other issues. In that sense, it's heavily POV in a negative manner. John2510 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John2510 is on Corbett's payroll. That has been a proven fact time and time again.

Term as governor

[edit]

The entire opening paragraph is outdated, as the budget has already passed.

It could read:

Governor Corbett's 2011-2012FY Budget is the first to pass on time in 8 years. It reduces government spending by 4% and closed a 4 billion dollar structural deficit. One time only money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (known publicly as the Federal Stimulus Package), totaling in the amount of 2.6 billion dollars was distributed for education in 09-10FY and 10-11FY. Instead of raising taxes as a means to offset the hole created by the stimulus monies, Corbett choose to hold the line on taxes. [1] Ianthegreat22 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous edit adding the "cracker" plant was an extremely large claim for job creation (17000) and the referenced cite didn't have that number, only an estimate of maximum construction jobs (10,000) and full time (several hundred) jobs after the plant was completed. Further, the plant will end hundreds of jobs of people already employed at the location for a zinc plant. It was factually and contextually misleading. I edited it to reflect the actual numbers and total picture, using the same cite as the orginal post. Springthunderstorms (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.pennbpc.org/sites/pennbpc.org/files/Governors-2011-12-Budget-Education-Funding.pdf

Possible vandalism on page

[edit]

I have just noticed that this page has become nothing but jibberish and appears to have been vandalized. Is it possible to revert to a previous edit and rebuild the table of contents in addition to locking the page to prevent further vandalism? Please message me back on my page. Thanks! Brandon 04:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Sandusky case?

[edit]

As attorney general Corbett had the chance to investigate and arrest Jerry Sandusky but didn't. There is no shortage of information about Corbett's role in the case, but here is one particularly in-depth investigation: http://www.yardbird.com/joe_paterno_takes_the_fall.htm#arrest7 Jstohler (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The pedophile John2510 will not allow it, he will cry like the sissy he is.

More on Natural Gas

[edit]

There appear to be a lot of recent edits on the "Natural Gas" section that are POV, unsupported by the sources provided, and not BLP.

For example, the article states: "The law helps gain access to land for a new pipeline that will transport liquid natural gas (LNG) from Pennsylvania to export terminals in Maryland, from which it will be shipped to Europe and Asia."

While the first cited source actually says: "Under the company's plan, shipments of the super-chilled liquefied gas would arrive by tanker. The substance would be transformed into gas and pumped from the plant through a 28-inch-diameter pipeline to Pennsylvania, where it would be distributed to locations along the East Coast."

It's appropriate to include noteworthy criticisms of a Bill signed by a governor, but there seem to be repeated efforts to turn this into an article about the dangers of LNG development. It's out of proportion in a BLP of the governor who signed the Bill.

The phraseology is also slanted and POV. The article states, "Despite warnings from the EPA about the safety of wastewater..." and then cites to an EPA study. Any indication Corbett saw the study? If not, he certainly didn't sign the Bill "despite" them.

Certainly, passages with unsources or contrarily-sourced information should be removed.

I can go back and work on this, but I thought I would raise it for discussion first.

John2510 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I toned down the language. The move to export natural gas to both free trade and other countries is all over the press/tv. They are trucking until the pipeline is built. There are many sources that say the pipeline is in the works and a new law signed by Corbett that gives the state more control over where pipelines go. There are sourced statements that shale/natural gas will increase employment/national security and sourced statements that there are plans to export which could move jobs overseas. PA is at the center of the Shale debate and under Corbett's leadership. It should be interesting.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pipeline was originally designed to import gas and send it to PA, but now with the glut of Shale gas, they are planning to reverse its direction. That's in one of the articles. They are doing this with some other oil and gas pipelines out west as well.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC) I added a few more articles that report the issues.Smm201`0 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CREW Reference

[edit]

There's currently a dispute in progress regarding CREW labeling Corbett one of the "worst governors in America". The dispute concerns adding the label "liberal watchdog group" as a descriptor to CREW in the article, with the label sourced to the LA Times.[1] In my opinion, the "worst governor in America" claim is inappropriate for the article, given the fact that CREW appears to have applied the label to 16 Republican and 2 Democratic governors based on a subjective analysis limited to that set of governors with no criteria specified. Regardless, I'm not aware of any reason why the properly sourced descriptor of CREW can't be added. Any thoughts on this from the community?CFredkin (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC

As briefly noted in one of my reverts, I'm tolerant of the POV observation by an obviously-biased source, but I think the bias needs to be noted. Highly-opinionated organizations learned long ago that they could clothe themselves with credibility by calling themselves "watchdog groups." However, those groups tend to watch one party a hell of a lot more zealously than they watch the other. Arguably, their opinions, or reports of their opinions, should get no WP credence whatsoever. I suppose every article about a politician could have a bot subheading "Opposition: His opponents don't like him." That's pretty much what the "watchdog" contributions consist of. John2510 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't proven that they are liberal, they are suspected of it,Anybody can click on the link to CREW and read that they are suspected as being liberal but never proven.Patriots49ers (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is CREW, and why is their subjective opinion of who is "worst" signficant? What does it tell the reader? Leaving it in there with the label of their POV is a pretty extreme compromise, really. Otherwise, the comment should be removed in its entirety. John2510 (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CREW put out reports about politicians, who have been caught receiving bribes and unethical contributions. We could list the proven bribes and unethical contributions Corbett has received since taking office instead. I doubt you want to do that, with your crush on Corbett.16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, Patriots49ersis only the latest incarnation of an editor who has repeatedly been banned for threatening people, including an administrator who banned him, arising from edits on this article. His account has now been blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Banned_User_Repeatedly_Returns I'm removing the section in question. If it was a legit editor, a compromise would be in order, but not with this guy. The section is nothing more than a POV conclusion by a POV organization, which adds nothing to the reader's understanding. John2510 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/04/news/la-pn-cain-crew-20111104

Corbett's Minions Among Us

[edit]

We have issues with Corbett's campaign coming here, and making sure Corbett's page is sparkly clean, and only focuses on positives. Why can't it be like a page on any other politician? Non-biased, and not trying to sugar coat everything to make Corbett look perfect, when in reality he is not.I am not calling for a sludging of him, but to report backed up facts. Patriots49ers (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reason to believe that anyone editing here is working for Corbett's campaign, or otherwise has any conflict of interest in their posting, you should confront them and report it to WP. If someone is trying to sanitize this article, they're doing a pretty poor job of it. John2510 (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, Patriots49ersis only the latest incarnation of an editor who has repeatedly been banned for threatening people, including an administrator who banned him, arising from edits on this article. His account has now been blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Banned_User_Repeatedly_Returns BTW: 1) When he threatened the admin who originally blocked him, he claimed (according to the admin) that the block was costing him money, because he was being paid to edit here; and 2) I have no connection to the Corbett campaign. I edit here out of personal conviction. While I support Corbett's governorship (and not without exception), no one in my real life is aware of my edits here. John2510 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed has recently reported that some of the edits made in 2012 resolve to an IP address registered to Pennsylvania state government. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre that they would consider that newsworthy. The fact that an editor who works for the state is interested in the PA governor shouldn't be a shock. Nor should that fact that such an editor would be partisan - one way or the other. I note that the editor in question made one fewer edit to Patrick Swayze's page than he did to Corbett's. Does the Corbett team have it in for Swayze for some reason that isn't apparent? Is Swayze's ghost considering a run for office? Not exactly the earmarks of an actual conspiracy. John2510 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Corbett. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Tom Corbett. 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}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Corbett&oldid=1205566027"