Talk:Tim Pawlenty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within Minnesota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents


Look I understand that 2006 is an election year for the Governor, but this is not the place to make partisan jabs. This is an encyclopedia. This is no place for opinion or petty political moves. I thought wikipedia was better than that.

I'm going to single out one person in particular, Wakeenah, I understand you're a democrat from Minnesota. You obviously don't want the article on the Republican governor from your state to look anything but bad. But can we agree this is not the place for that? Maybe here in the discussion, but not in the article.

I'll admit, I'm a Republican and I'm a fan of Tim Pawlenty. However you won't find that in any of my writing, ever. I offer facts and only facts, and when dealing with this page in particular, I offer facts strictly dealing with the governor Tim Pawlenty. Nothing more, nothing less. User:StevenK

  • I did not add the remarks about his "merciless budget slashing", someone else did that. All I added was the well-documented slip at the hockey game, which I merely thought was funny, and would have reported it no matter what the politics of the guy who said it. You should give me some credit for not posting the Governor's theme song for the state: "I Got Pawlenty o' Nothin'". >:) Wahkeenah 14:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I put my two cents in ? because I will. the whole thing was over in less than a week, most Minnesotans found it funny and thought it showed a human side to politican. Is the event worthy to be included in an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. Yes I voted for him in 02 and probably again in 06, yet I am not completely happy with him. The orginal version of how it was written was as a political poke. it has gotten better (at least as of the last time I check) but really it a very small thing that in the grand scope of things does not belong in the article. Not because it makes him look bad but because it is so unimportant and minor. Smith03 14:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the budget thing on OCT 26 because it along with other things made in that edit were one side written with pov the state's overall budget has never been decreased during his term.

NHL Incident ? I think there can be a better title than this Smith03 14:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • In fact, it started as a passing comment, and someone "improved" it by expanding it into a full-blown section. That's way overkill, and you're right that it doesn't merit long-term inclusion. So take it out already! By the way, as far as taxation is concerned, I am in favor of his tax proposal on cigarettes. I am always in favor of taxes on things I don't use. :b Wahkeenah 15:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

we all are in favor of taxing things we don't use :) Smith03 15:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    • I took it out. A rare case of submitting to those who like to call this pretentious weblog an "encyclopedia". In the past year, since I discovered this site, I have been less and less impressed by it, on a daily basis.
    • Regarding the partisanship charge, I adhere to what columnist Art Buchwald once said: I'm against whoever is in office. And a Republican happens to be there currently. He's certainly an improvement on Jesse.
    • Cigarettes provide a two-pronged benefit: (1) increasing tax revenues and (2) reducing Social Security expenditures. Wahkeenah 15:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This is terribly biased. I am adding a warning label.

~~Overly Critical Pawlenty Article~~

This article was overly critical of Tim Pawlenty and the Republican party. I am a moderate (I voted for Moe in 2002 and Kerry in 2004) from Minnesota who attended college in Wisconsin. I have met both Governors and believe that they are good men and good leaders for their respective states. However, after reading both of their articles in Wikipedia, I find that there seems to be favoritism to the DFL. In my opinion, Governor Pawlenty has done a good job balancing the budget and keeping spending focused on the most important public matters. In the article it described this as:

“Pawlenty was elected on a platform of balancing the state's budget without raising taxes. Estimates of his success have varied. One one side, during his first year as governor, Pawlenty balanced a $4.3 billion dollar deficit without raising taxes, mainly by reducing funding for state services.

The more controversial part of his approach to the budget came from his attempts to raise taxes by raising "fees" instead.”

In this part of the article the author downplays the positive part that he balanced a huge deficit and focuses more on the negative part about reducing funding for state services, controversy, and “fees”.

Balancing a budget has to be very difficult for anyone. Most people have a tough time balancing their personal budgets. In my opinion, Governor Pawlenty did as good of a job as anyone could have.

In contrast this next quote is from the Jim Doyle article:

“As Governor, Doyle has made investing in public schools, support for regional economic development, transportation reform, and funding of scientific pursuits such as stem cell research his major programs. However, with a GOP-controlled state legislature, Doyle has had difficulties turning many of his plans into actions.”

This section to me makes Jim Doyle look like the good guy (and he is a good guy) but the “GOP-controlled state legislature” is portayed as the bad guys because they are acting as a check and balance.

Just a note for comparison: Doyle’s “investment in public schools” made in-state annual tuition at UW-River Falls (the school I attended) $5322. A similar school, Minnesota State University – Moorhead has in-state annual tuition of $4464. These two are very comparable schools with similar strengths and resources (MSUM actually having a better student to faculty ratio). The article portrays Doyle as “investing in public schools” and Pawelnty in this way:

“As members of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities board complained, student shares of tuition increased by double-digit percentages in that year and the years following”

However, in the end, weren’t Minnesota’s tuitions lower?

I am in favor of being less critical of all the men and women that lead our country and states in the right direction. I know that not everyone will agree on individual issues (I certainly don't), but can’t we agree that our leaders are doing their best to make this country the best it can be today and in the future. I definitely think so.


    • A few things: 1) Please sign all comments, with the four ~'s. 2) Please refrain from partisan rhetoric. It's childish and will be caught, so it's a waste of your time. 3) In regards to the 'nhl incident', I too agree that it is not deserving of its own section, which is why I put it under a 'trivia' section. I suggest someone creates one, with several bits of trivia, as many other politicians have. Trilemma 22:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the neutrality is terrible in this article

This article paints Pawlenty in an amazingly skewed but beautiful looking lime-light. It claims that the state government was "almost" shut down when in fact it was a complete "partial" shut down. Tim Pawlenty is awesome. The first time in the history of Minnesota. All state parks would have been closed on the Fourth of July Weekend if it wasn't for a last second emergency house meeting. Democrats and Republicans sat in a terrible deadlock for financial balancing issues throughout nearly the entire summer because Republicans wanted to cut a slew of social services and decrease corporate and highest income bracket taxation while the Democrats wanted to in fact increase the upper income bracket taxation along with corporate state financing.

Republicans live within their means. The democrats in Minnesota only care about being re-elected. Look at the polls in the liberal Star Tribune. Most Minnesotans do not want their taxes increased. Any time the education union yells "boo" the democrats fall to their knees. The Democrats strategy was great, blame a republican majority in the house and the governor, do nothing, and then win elections in 2006. Funny now that five DFL senators have already defected from raising taxes. I am waiting to see how many good liberal Minnesotans are going to vote for their suburban DFL senators now that they are aiming to have the highest income tax bracket in the nation.

The paragraph above is absolutely off topic and not relevant to this article or to a Wikipedia talk page. .:DavuMaya:. 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2908/1/351

In addition Pawlenty also failed to properly negotiate the transit strike which literally crippled thousands of lower class citizens from transportation to and from their work for over a month. The transit union also received massive health care slashing and benefit losses. The most any transit union has seen in the history of the Midwest.

You dont think that the head of the union dropped the ball with negotiations? If the contract is so bad, why did the majority of transit workers sign it? The problem with the transit strike was that there was hardly any effect on business. The head of the met council offered vouchers for those who wanted to use metro mobility and other transit options outside of the metro transit buses. I find it funny that the union blames Pawlenty, but does not blame their own union leader.

>>Since 2002 the legislature has cut funding by 18 percent and the route system has been reduced by 7 percent. Metro Transit’s figures show that compared to similar cities the Minneapolis-St. Paul system brings in the highest per-passenger trip revenue while ranking second from the bottom in securing governmental subsidies.<< -IFCI

Minnesotans do not use public transit. There was no outrage from the public when the buses were down. Why would people in Alexandria and Duluth care about transit if people in the metro dont even care.

These are two very huge events that you can guarantee will see press again once elections roll around. Why are they not listed on wikipedia?

I have no issue listing the positive accomplishments that Pawlenty has contributed to, but I find it hypocritical from the conservative point of view to complain about the neutrality of this article when two very negative things during his 2005 career are completely glossed over.

I personally will not edit this article simply because I feel that my bias will skew it, however the original creator and current editors of the article obviously let their bias get in the way. This reads more like a resume created by Pawlenty himself than an actual article on the successes and failures of the current governor. I am incredibly disappointed with the community on this one and encourage a complete rewrite from a far less bias source. I have no idea why you people are concerned about a "trivia" section or the inane "NHL incident" when we can't even accurately and adequetly sum up what this person has and hasn't done in not even one full term.

Here is a very vague example of what we should be looking for: "In March of 2005 the Metro Transit Union was poised on striking due to benifit cuts to nearly the entire workforce. In an attempt to advert a potential public transpertation hault Pawlenty volunteered to take control of the negotiations from an early point in the strike. Unfortunetly no agreement was met and the strike which started on March 4th finally ended on April 16th as union workers abandon the negotiations, in turn recieving significant cuts to medical and personal benifits."

That documents Pawlenty's desire to aid Minnesota in a crucial time but also states his failure without adding bias insult. This was a very huge event for anyone living in the metro area. Roughly 50% of the state's population. It was the largest strike the Metro Transit had ever participated in since its advent. This made front page news for almost a month and a half.

With due respect to your opinion (which you should have signed with four ~'s), I believe you're off base. Mr. Pawlenty's article has been the subject of several partisan edits, primarily from the left, and I think this current version is probably the best in a while. I do think it would be nice to more extensively highlight the measures the Minnesota government has taken under him, but as you note, it's difficult to do so without it turning into partisan rhetoric. If I was from Minnesota (and not biased in favor of Pawlenty), I would work on it myself. Trilemma 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you people understand what I am trying to get at. I understand that a lot of the wording I used in the "discussion" section was partisan. I never once claimed otherwise. However I am ashamed at the fact that two of largest issues that the Minnesota Government faced, lead by Pawlenty in 2005 are completely glossed over. I noticed that no one responded to my example paragraph, which is what I am looking for. I don't care how you people feel about my opinion of the man. Those things are simply moot. Why is the Metro transit strike not mentioned in this article? Why is the government shutdown re-worded to imply that it almost happened when in fact it did? How can any of this be considered non-partisan when it blatantly paints a more positive picture of the functioning state of the Minnesota government? Ignore my comments like "crippling thousands of lower income people" (regardless of how obviously accurate it is) and focus on my example paragraph. Do you people honestly feel that I worded it in a partisan manner?::


Put it in if you feel it is important, make changes into what is already in the article. All I am saying is (any this would be for everyone) watch what words are used and check your sources on the facts. IMO the shutdown should be included it think it already is, but realise it took all sides (R and D) that lead to the shutdown and neither one was perfect. The bus strike same thing the drivers didnot feel they were being paid enough the met council which a state agency believe they were again if you want put it in but again try to be balance.

"Do you people honestly feel that I worded it in a partisan manner?::"

When this is proceeded by "Ignore my comments like "crippling thousands of lower income people" (regardless of how obviously accurate it is) and focus on my example paragraph." I think you may write in a partisan manner.

Smith03 14:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


"merciless budget slashing", I will try to use this as an example first of merciless is a pov term second budget slashing is a vague term and a loaded term the overall budget of Minn has not decrease it is true that certain parts of the budget have been reduce or cut but to say "merciless budget slashing", is just as bad as the quote from the tax league about a great leader. The NHL incident was about as noteable as putting something in about the deer that hit the capitol window last week when pawlenty was coming in the building with his daughter. the hockey quote was pointless and perhaps it was put in to make him look bad perhaps not but any political figure in wikipedia is a target for supporters to heap praise on and opponents to point out every bad thing. Also the information of where he was force to accept the 75 fee/tax hike. He suggested it in the first place. How can you be forced to accept something you put out in the first place?

What i don't like is that one person comes along on an article and writes all the bad stuff about a person so someone else comes along and writes all the good stuff. I don' have a problem pointing out his negatives but watch the adjectives such as "merciless", "literally crippled thousands of lower class citizens"

"Since 2002 the legislature has cut funding by 18 percent and the route system has been reduced by 7 percent. Metro Transit’s figures show that compared to similar cities the Minneapolis-St. Paul system brings in the highest per-passenger trip revenue while ranking second from the bottom in securing governmental subsidies"

you may what to note the Dems control the senate and thus have to at least go along with any cuts.

wanted to cut a slew of social services and decrease corporate and highest income bracket taxation while the Democrats wanted to in fact increase the upper income bracket taxation along with corporate state financing."

I don't recall the GOP advocating decreasing corp taxes and the highest income bracket I believe they wanted to leave it as it was. When I read that it sounds like the Gop wanted to screw the poor and help the rich while the Dems justed wanted to have rich people pay more in taxes. You may want to included the rational as to why each side advocated what they advocated, of course make sure you correctly state what each side was advocating in the first place

Sorry I keep doing this but omb.org who are they and what do they stand for? Is it possible that by using quotes from them is just as bad as taking quotes from taxpayers league? Are they truley non partisan?

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/archive/343 OMBwatch recommond sites] one of them is moveon.org Gee that groups really likes Republicans. Maybe that is not fair of me, but if you want to add good or bad stuff about pawlenty or anyone else know your source Smith03 00:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Let's not forget that during the prolonged Metro Transit bus strike of 2004, when many working citizens were in distress, Governor Pawlenty gave no sign of caring, getting involved, or otherwise lending his leadership skills to a volatile situation which created great hardship for many. I, for one, will never forget this, no matter how brightly Pawlenty seems to shine when things are going his way and there are no inconvenient difficulties assaulting the citizenry.

IMO first of all read WP's complete bollocks rule. A basic understanding of Minnesota's levels of governance and authority need to be addressed for users before this discussion continues anywhere because this is complete bollocks with pure lack of understanding of the topics that are being suggested for inclusion and is not a discussion of neutrality. NEUTRALITY is excising the article of all adjectives and feely words and simply presenting all facts as facts. Do not complain that there is not this event or that event or that happened, you should add it yourself! Facts also do not result in your personal conclusion. A conclusion is something the reader draws for themselves based upon what they have seen. .:DavuMaya:. 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Neutrality

First, let me reiterate what has already been stated above: sign your comments with four tildes (~). Second, to ease following the discussion, use asterisks (*) to create a bullet and multiple asterisks to increase an indent. Now, on the topic of the article, if you feel that these issues are important to the article, please make them. Wikipedia is based on the principle of everyone being able to make changes that they see fit. Second, Wikipedia is not a place to argue politics, whether in discussion pages or articles. While I myself am a Republican, I do realize that some of the wording in the article is biased, and therefore made an effort to edit some of this language out. It is not the point of Wikipedia to argue over issues in the talk pages and then have no changes made to the article. If you would like something changed, change it. Thank to all of you for contributing to Wikipedia and best wishes. Airline 01:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

anyone know? "Governor Pawlenty was the first Minnesota Governor ever to cut education funding. " was actual dollars less from one budget to the next budget or was the spending not increase to a level that some wanted? because iirc classroom k-12 spending was the only item that was not cut during the 03 budget now perhaps that changed in 05 Smith03 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April 2006 Neutrality

I posted an NPOV message on the top of this article. Certain phrases are impossible to pardon: "During his term, Governor Pawlenty created the Minnesota Academic Standards, new graduation requirements, and reorganized, renamed, and refocused the Department of Education to a mission of educating children."

"Governor Pawlenty provided the largest infusion of dollars into Minnesota's transportation infrastructure by restructuring and reforming the Minnesota Department of Transportation."

(The education bolding was my own emphasis there.) Sean Hayford O'Leary 01:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, there isn't any discussion going in about it nor any attempts to fix whatever is caused it to be placed in the first place. If someone thinks it belongs it should be acted on to some degree. Rx StrangeLove 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Elected Office

Mr. Pawlenty's first elected office was not State Rep. Prior to being elected to the State Legislature, he served as a member of the Eagan City Council.

This may or may not be relevant to his Wiki article, but I think it does give readers a better sense of where he cut his political teeth.

Other feedback is welcome about whether this should be added or not.

go for it!!Smith03 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal and Family history

How did Tim Pawlenty play hockey for the Wild?209.162.8.244 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran??????????

The Pawlentys are member of woodale church in Eden prairie and that is a member of Minnesota Baptist Conference and the Baptist General Conference.

http://woodale.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=8671

Smith03 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to get it right, apparently. Now the article says he attends a Pentecostal church, which is an interesting interpretation of "Baptist." This isn't the place for a religious discussion, but I'll say this much: it would be unusual for a large suburban baptist church to endorse speaking in tongues and faith healing in the Pentecostal manner.Spottacus 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eligibility for a 3rd term?

Is it true that he can run for another term? Does someone know of a citation source for this?--Appraiser 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Term

The MN Constitution does not have term limits, so Gov Pawlenty is eligible to run for a third term (Gov Perpich ran for 3rd full term in 1990, but was defeated by Arne Carlson). EdwinHJ | Talk 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

The Brunswick article listed under references is a broken link and is mis-dated as "2 December 2007" which hasn't technically been written yet. Likely 2 December 2006.

[edit] Bridge Collapse

It needs to be included in the article. When everything starts to clear, this could be a dark spot on his record, I believe. This is the most critical moment of his terms as governor and people will start asking questions about his veto pen when it comes to infrastructure projects across the state.

Why? Did he build the bridge? Did he destory the bridge? Did he do the review of the bridge which stated that it may need to be replaced in 2020? There is no indication that anything he did or didn't do caused this tragedy. This should not be a political issue, don't turn it into one. Arzel 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a great desire to point the finger at Pawlenty regarding this disaster. At this point there is no evidence that he was responsiple in any capacity, and any conjecture within this BLP would be synthesis of material and OR. Until such evidence exists leave it out of the article. Arzel 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The material citing his actions with regard to infrastructure are well-supported facts that will be part of Pawlenty's legacy. Of course he is not responsible for that particular bridge on that particular day, but his tenure includes a pattern of vetos, veto threats, and statements related to the topic of state-wide infrastructure and funding. To remove them from his article is to put blinders on. Every quote and action should be well-supported by peer-reviewed sources, and opinion should be omitted. But the facts should not be. This is not his personal campaign website. --Appraiser 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This is also not an article to attack a person for something they had nothing to do with. You could just as well blame Ventura for not doing anything based off the 2001 report. Here are the facts as they stand today. MNDOT was in the process of collecting bids to make structural repairs to the bridge to be completed in 2008. There was examination of the bridge which had been delayed due to the current work on the bridge unrelated to the structural issues. MNDOT has stated they had the money to make the repairs. Pawlenty had nothing to do with the decision to make repairs to the bridge it was up to the engineers within MNDOT (as it should be). To imply that veto's by Pawlenty were some how related to the collapse of the bridge is a clear instance of synthesis of material and OR in the manner which it is currently written. The entire paragraph is written to imply that the bridge collapse was a direct result of Pawlenty's previous vetos. As such it is extremely POV. I agree that this shouldn't be a personal campaign website, but to make implications as you are doing here is simply wrong. If evidence is forthcoming that links errors from Pawlenty to this disaster then by all means they should be included, but at this time what is written is simply a political attack. Arzel 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I added back the statements with sources about his vetoes and his latest willingness to add money for maintenance, leaving out his statement on Wednesday about how he had interpreted Mn/DOT's earlier evaluations about the bridge. Hopefully this new version will meet with your approval.--Appraiser 03:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I left in the comment regarding his new willingness to have a gas tax, but removed the other synthesis of material. Before you try to add it back in let me ask you where in the source with regards to the vetos is there an indication that his vetos would "slash" money from transportation? Also, the quote "Pay a price" is not something Dean Johnson said. That is a quote from Mike Mulcahy, not Dean Johnson himself. What you are trying to add into this article is synthesis of material and OR. Stop trying to link the two unrelated aspects together. If you have been listening, it appears that the way bridge inspecting has been done, and continues to be done in the US may be mostly to blame for this disaster. Along with the building technique done in the 1960's. Arzel 13:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Arzel's statements, I believe a section on Pawlenty's voting and stance on transportation issues must be critically highlighted. Though we should be careful about how the 35W collapse plays into this section, he has honestly done a lot of nothing this year and doing a lot of nothing has resulted in such things being overlooked. Government is bureaucracy, top down, and it doesn't matter if Pawlenty never touched a report, nothing the state gov does happens w/o an approval from above. I think the current section as it is written now is fine but it should be slightly expanded upon. .:DavuMaya:. 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually he has done a lot. He held the line on spending. If you feel we dont pay enough taxes, donate some of your money. If you feel roads are under-funded, call your DFL legislater and tell them to cut out social spending and start spending on roads and bridges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.174.4 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casino section

I am reverting the recent change about who was worried about losing campaign financing. The only source provided for that paragraph says nothing about Minnesota Democrats being the recipients of the several $100,000 given by Minnesota Tribes. Also the $13 million cited in the article was nationwide. If anyone disagrees, please state your reasoning here. Thank you,--Appraiser 19:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I linked up an article. Did no one here watch the news in 2004? It was the democrats who blocked the racino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.174.4 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to find a source that says that. Original research is not allowed.--Appraiser 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I see you have found one. Thank You.--Appraiser 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have cited a source changed the word to "mostly Democrats". That is exactly what MPR reported - mostly Democrats. Are the democrats trying to distance themselves from the funds they have received from tribes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoszman (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you please figure out how to write a citation and fix it. No one can verify what you say MPR said, because your citation is screwed up.--Appraiser 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

The norm as of late is to NOT include a "controversies" section in pages of current political figures. Instead, the information that might otherwise be included in the "controversies" section should be included in various appropriate sections of the article. For example, if there is a controversy concerning education, the issue should be included in the "education" section of the page. Pages belonging to Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all use this technique to include controversial material. In fact, there is a lengthy discussion regarding the issue Obama's page. One reason, for example, is because "controversy" sections tend to become dumping grounds for individuals to put unsubstantiated and malicious content. I don't have a problem with controversies being included. They should, however, conform to the current norm of being included in relevant sections of the article, which contain well-rounded discussion of the issue, and not in a section dedicated specifically to controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanruss (talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I reworded some of the controversy section to have a more neutral tone. I also removed one uncited section with many weasel words. Furthermore I removed additional sections which don't appear to be direct controversies. Arzel 04:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the page has now been protected without any discussion here. I feel it is quite disengenous to ask for protection without discussion regarding some of the comments and the tone of the comments within the controversies section. Arzel 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There were a lot of relevant comments made in the edit comments, and yet the entire controversies section was simply entirely removed over a dozen times by the same small group of users, mostly IP and unregistered, and including 3RR violations by individual users. That is a lot more of a problem than tweaking the section, which hopefully can be done in a more orderly way once various editors get the idea that they will not be able to make any change at all if all they do is try to remove any discussion of controversy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I pose a recommendation to eliminate the controversy section and integrate the text into other parts of his "As governor" section. As I see it, there are "controversial" things in almost all the subsections and IMO controversy is naturally part of any decision of any governing body. There is nothing more controversial about taxes than who he has hired. SINCE THIS IS ARTICLE IS A BIOGRAPHY I recommend that a controversy section be reserved for only the most heinous transgressions, for example if Pawlenty were to personally do some action or cause something that had a wide-spread and noticable effect, if he were charged for a crime or did something outside of his governor position that was gregarious. His regular duties and decisions are part of him being a governor, they come with the package so-to-speak and there is nothing controversial about it. In this way I believe we can appease both political agendas by avoiding labels. .:DavuMaya:. 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not work for Tim Pawlenty. The way the sex offender line is worded it sounds like sex offenders were placed in nursing home by the state. The former Attorney General speculated because of budget cuts to the sex offender rehbilitations, sex offenders ended up in nursing homes. Why dont you cite an actual news story on this and not the Attorney General's specualtion and opinion. You are in viloation of NPOV. -tmoszman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoszman (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) The citations you provided still do not show that the state placed sex offenders in nursing homes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoszman (talk • contribs) 02:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the articles? for example, "Corrections Commissioner Joan Fabian confirmed Wednesday that the state does have a contract with Concordia but said "very few offenders" were sent there. She defended the decision to send some offenders to Concordia, saying that for those on supervised release who had serious physical or mental problems, "this was better then just letting them out into the community or having them live under a bridge."" Joan Fabian clearly represented the Minnesota state government in 2004. --Appraiser (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC) I just checked - Joan Fabian is the CURRENT Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Clearly the state DID place sex offenders in at least one nursing home during Mr. Pawlenty's reign as governor. And this issue is appropriately mentioned here under the "controversies" section. I am not pushing POV; I am attempting to cover the topic factually.--Appraiser (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the controversey is better suited for a state of Minnesota page and not Pawlenty's biography. How long did the state have a contract with Concordia? Does it predate Pawlenty's administartion? Hatch's OPINION is that Pawlenty's budget caused sexual abuse. You should also then state that it was offenders with physical or mental problems that were put there in place of being set free in the community. You are trying to spin an underfunded government angle. -tmoszman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoszman (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to the reasons behind the reverts of the carry permit reciprocity controversy. The failure of the 35W bridge seems to be accepted, despite the fact that Pawlenty's only involvement has been to be groundlessly accused of having responsibility, in direct contradiction to the evidence.
The carry permit reciprocity issue, OTOH, is based on his own failure to act - his failure to meet both the requirements of the law and his own personal promises to political supporters.
There is certainly controversy surrounding the bridge, but it's connection to Pawlenty is questionable. There is controversy surrounding the permit reciprocity issue, and it's connection to Pawlenty is direct.
--jdege (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And the carry permit reciprocity controversy has been removed again, citing "reliable sources". I don't think that's appropriate, in this case. To quote from the WP policy:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I can't speak for the "Northern Muckraker", but Joel Rosenberg, on this issue, falls in exactly that category. He's the author of "Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota", and of the American Association of Certified Firearms Instructors curiculumn for Minnesota. He is an expert in this area, and has been previously published by reliable third-party publications.

I won't restore the passage right now. I'll wait for some more reasoned arguments as to why, exactly, it is less suitable for inclusion than the bridge issue. But if I don't see some, I will restore the passage.

--jdege (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any links to reliable third-party publications that published Rosenberg? The web has a lot on another Joel Rosenberg, which makes searches a bit tricky. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
His first professional sale was an OpEd in the New York Times; He has also appeared in American Business, GamePlay, and the Star Tribune. And Writers Digest, EMPIRE, Avon Books (The Electronic Money Machine, a book on computers), and a bunch of other things. When discussing anything related to carrying a handgun in Minnesota, and the associated laws, Joel Rosenberg is one of the foremost authorities. Repeated radio interviews, he literally 'wrote the book'.Princewally (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Legally-Carrying-Handgun-Minnesota/dp/0974148008/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202837414&sr=1-1Princewally (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I take it that you are disregarding his work as a published on author on the topic(one of the generally acceptable methods of claiming expertise), since you killed the update again? Princewally (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Writing a book doesn't automatically make someone an expert, though he does appear to be well-versed in Minnesota's gun laws. Regardless, per undue weight, his role in the "controversy" doesn't appear to have attracted much mainstream news attention. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-American?

Is he really of Polish descent? Barry Kent (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on deletions

I removed the Controversy (I don't much like that word) section, which appears to have bothered another editor who deleted it in entirety a couple three times and referred to it by name in an edit summary. I moved that information to the article. My first impression came today when I added two things and a source. There is plenty of room. Positives as well as negatives could both have space (and first guess is some additions might be needed for this article to reach B-class and higher). -Susanlesch (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)