Talk:Mark Warner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
Mark Warner is within the scope of WikiProject Indianapolis, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Indianapolis, Indiana and related subjects in the Wikipedia. | |
| B | This article has been rating as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Contents |
[edit] Government Performance Project
I was reading this over, and did a quick lookup of this report. According to the web site, Virginia, in 2005, recieved a list of A- grades across the board except on money, which was an A ([Government Performance Project Report]), yet this article states:
"Virginia and Utah tied with an A- overall, but Virginia got A's across the board, prompting Warner to dub Virginia "the best managed state in the nation."
This statement appears to be completly innacurate, and there's no citation on his quote. I'm tempted to modify this section, but I wanted to put this in here in case i've somehow missed something. I'm sure it can be "reformulated" with more accurate information by those who maintain this article. --Jmathies 13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've done some cleanup, including the above reference to the study. The article rambles quite a bit and seems to get off topic, i've tried to remedy this a couple places but the article still needs some work. --Jmathies 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misc
The List of Governors of Virginia lists 76 governors of Virginia under statehood. How, then, can Warner be the 69th, as claimed on this page? 69.19.2.225 08:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Some of the governors have held multiple non-consecutive terms; the number of 76 indicates the number of discrete terms held, but only 69 individuals have served in the office. The image claiming Warner is the 69th is from the Governor of Virginia's website, so apparently the state prefers to use that method of counting. Ground 19:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bush numbers
Why are we including this comparison in the lead of this article? The entire point seems to be to say that Warner is more popular than Bush in Virginia -- what is the point of this? Are the two in contending offices? Not really, since they are in different levels of government. Are the two likely to face each other in an election? No, obviously not. There are dozens of political figures who would be a more relevant comparison than Bush -- more interesting to compare, for instance, Virgina legislative leaders. Describing 40% as "tepid" is also POV. Frankly, the intention seems purely to get a dig in at Bush. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- 40% is always a tepid number, be them Democrats or Republicans. Warner and Bush are the last two major officeholders to win a statewide election in the state of Virginia. However, I have now removed the mention to protect Bush from being compared with Warner. –Uris 02:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
From tla. Clearly, the piece on Mark Warner is a puff piece and will be recommended for major change or outright removal. Only what Warner press releases consider his successes are sighted. This is as unbalanced an article on a Virginia governor as I've found so far. It is also as detailed as one might expect from a slavish Warner supporter, and completely lacks neutrality, when viewed by an actual citizen of Virginia who has seen the Warner term from within the state. Warner DID wangle the largest tax increase in Virginia history, and it DID extract far more money from the taxpayers than was needed for the state's budget. He DID declare a water emergency during a heavy rain in the areas affected by a short-term drought, and DID declare the state's right to ban the use of private wells in defiance of thousands of years of real estate law and any common-sense understanding of the state's right to control water sources on private property. Auto and driver's licenses increased drastically in expense during Warner's term, as did the cost of transferring property of any type. Any license or fee charged by the state increased in cost at a rate many times that of inflation during this governor's term of office. Just because a supporter doesn't want to include the facts, should they really get away with inflicting a puff piece like this article and be able to pass it off as factual? Well, there is a whole world outside of wiki that can be informed that this website is an unreliable source. It certainly relies on the selective urban and Northern Virginia press as major sources, and neither represents the state as a whole.
- Actual citizens of Virginia are the ones that have made him their most popular Governor on record. By the way, I was born and raised and voted many times in western to central Virginia. You are free to cite newspapers from around the state other than the "selective urban and Northern Virginia press" but I don't think you can find any actual unbiased sources to support your position that is at odds with the vast majority of Virginians — all of whom, by the way, support Mark Warner far more than they supported Jim Gilmore or George Allen. –Uris 11:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the poll numbers for George Allen are higher, in a head to head race, for George Allen than Mark Warner. Still, no mention in your puff piece of the less than stellar moments of the Warner term, but that's fine, they'll come out if he runs for public office again. By the way, it's helpful if you know or care who commissions the poll before you cite it as inclusive of 'all or even a majority of Virginians'. The polls you cite, if you look into their methodology as I have, can be less random and more targeted to specific groups than you've suggested.
- Wrong. The Roanoke Times, far from the urban centers of Virginia that you seem to despise (read: Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) released this poll here in July showing Warner defeating Allen in a statewide race. But since you are a self-proclaimed expert on the polling process, why don't you explain to us how you've looked into their methodology, as you have, and have discovered their biased secrets. Those darned Southwest Virginia rural liberals! Care to elaborate? –Uris 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] No Longer Governor
I have tagged this article for clean-up. It needs to be updated to reflect the fact that as of today, he is a former governor. --TommyBoy 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup complete. --TommyBoy 10:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC) I have no problem with this entry,the site merely put my comments here rather than nearer the writer's snippy previous responses.Nice to read the sources again,it helps to explain how selective the writer was in cherry-picking his information.The now out-of-the-closet since the Webb campaign democrat cheerleader Larry Sabato is a source,so we can safely assume that at least some of the other sources are equally one-sided.This piece is so obviously biased and so obviously written by a Warner syncophant that any usefulness is only as a campaign flyer.This is the guy who definitely DID declare a water emergency during a torrential rainstorm,DID raise taxes more than any other governor of Virginia,and DID raise every tax and fee citizens were subjected to by dealing with the state,which he now calls'tax reform'.Not to mention his attempt to grant in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens while denying those lower rates to the families of military personnel stationed in Virginia.Warner is no more honest than his syncophants,and deserves no lifelong salary on the public's dime,as he would get if he serves a single Senate term.64.24.100.36 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)tla
[edit] Accuracy of Fiscal Policy
I just wanted to say that the paragraph outlining Mark Warner's budget policies is accurate but it could say more: Warner broke a solemn campaign promise and OK'ed the largest tax increase in Virginia history. --StevenL 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NNDB Source
I noticed that this article contains an external link to NNDB. In comments on Talk:Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales suggested that NNDB should never be cited as a source on Wikipedia. Considering his comments, should that link be removed from this article? --TommyBoy 06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, User:WaldoJ has removed the external link. --TommyBoy 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that -- I should have checked the talk page. I'd known about Jimbo's views on NNDB -- plus, the information was useless -- so I just pulled it. --WaldoJ 15:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger Proposal
I have proposed that the article on Warner'a wife, Lisa Collis should be merged with this article. See Talk:Lisa Collis for details. --TommyBoy 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have re-established Lisa Collis as a redirect to this article. --TommyBoy 09:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Views
I propose that there should be a "views" section for Warner, like there is for other presidential candidates. Schmorrell 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mark Warner 2008.jpg
Image:Mark Warner 2008.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Large $1.5B Tax Increase Needs Further Context
It is quite true that Governor Warner raised taxes by approximately $1.5B while in office. But that tax increase was in response to the $3B budget shortfall that he inherited from the Republican legislature and previous Republican governor Gilmore. In order to deliver a balanced budget, as constitutionally required in Virginia, Governor Warner, with the cooperation of the Republican legislature, choose to close the gap with both tax hikes and spending cuts. Increased taxes met half the short fall and cuts in spending closed the gap.
The Right will claim that the gap should have been completely closed with spending cuts and the Left will claim it should have all been done with increased taxes. Warner and the GOP legislature found a compromise solution that got it done, but didn't please either side. By stating that Warner raised taxes without putting the reason for the increase in its proper context (there no mention of the budget shortfall) adds political bias to this entry.
DCgent 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not contend that anything should be changed here as I am not a registered user for Wikipedia, but this comment "But that tax increase was in response to the $3B budget shortfall that he inherited from the Republican legislature and previous Republican governor Gilmore. In order to deliver a balanced budget, as constitutionally required in Virginia..." does not inject bias in the sense that Republicans will disagree with the method, but will rather disagree with the reason. There is a fallacy of logic in this point made: If the Virginia Governor is Constitutionally required to submit a balanced the budget, wouldn't that mean Governor Gilmore would have to submit a balanced budget as well? If not, why has their been no push to bring legal action? There have been numerous sources cited that point to there never being a budget shortfall that would call into major question Mark Warner's method for breaking his campaign promise of not raising taxes. In fact, both sources that I will provide contend that there was actually a substantial budget surplus. Also, it should be noted that when Gov. Gilmore left office, the "Rainy Day Fund" was completely funded with $1 billion. Sure doesn't sound like an fiscal crisis if you ask me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102289.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15458
Furthermore, in a recent talk to a Politics class at the University of Virginia, Mark Warner did not call his budget move a "tax increase" but rather a "tax reform". Why is he changing his tune if he was justified in in his reason for raising taxes initially? 199.111.167.217 08:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additions
Since he is a former governor, I think we ought to add things like his accomplishments as governer.71.191.199.175 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Anonymous.
