Talk:Jim Gilmore

Bias?

This article seems a bit biased to me. There is no criticism stated of Gimore, especially in regards to his reduction of the car tax, despite the fact that he was critized for the deficit and tax burden problems brought on by that move [1][2]. Could someone look into this?

--A bit!?!?? This article could have been lifted straight from the Republican Party's website, and I would not be surprised.

I removed the most flagrant Republican bias and replaced it with a NPOV. As a VA college student, I can tell you that there is NO WAY tuition went down by 20%, so I removed that bit. Otherwise, everything else is basically preserved but with a NPOV.

What does everyone think?

This article seems quite biased to me too.

This is beyond biased. Gilmore's tax cuts did serious, serious damage to VA's economy and infrastructure. Rewrite!

Gilmore cut tuitions by 20% in 1999 and then froze tuition for the remainder of his term. It was a widely documented public policy approved by the Virginia General Assembly over the muted college presidents. Gov. Warner and Gov. Kaine lifted the tuition freeze and tuition has virtually doubled since 2002. Gov. Kaine signed legislation in 2006 that calls for up to 9-10% tuition increases in future years. The current Va. college student disputes that Gilmore cut tuition by 20% in 1999? S/he was probably in junior high school when it occurred and should become more knowledgable before editing history s/he has no knowledge of.

To whom it may concern: Whatever you have been told about these tax cuts causing serious damage to VA's economy is completely false. In fact, it has been recently uncovered that there was no budget deficit in Virginia. At no time did Virginia have a budget deficit from Gilmore's tax cuts. In fact, before Mark Warner ever raised taxes, there was a $600 million surplus in the budget of Virginia. Also, if there was such a budget crisis, how did the budget of Virginia increase from $40 billion to ~$67 billion during the so called "crisis". Just so you do not believe that I'm entirely biased: Mark Warner's administration recently released information that his last budget was off by about $145 million, making his administration seem better than it really was. So the question to ask should be: Was Mark Warner ever telling us the truth, or is he just inept fiscally? Which do you think he would prefer? Maybe his recent pullout of the 2008 contest has something to do with him lying to Virginian's for 4 years? Jim Gilmore has never lied about anything during his administration; he was always honest and forthright. He was successful, popular and the epitome of what conservatism should be. These facts alone could explain why democrats hate him so much and why Republicans praise him.

--Care to add 'He never lied in his life' (which now reads above "...has never lied about anything during his administration")to the article, perhaps with some sources? And last I checked, he wasn't popular enough to bring Mark Earley in on his coattails.

-You obviously do not know very much about the campaign of Mark Earley. Mark Earley never asked for any campaign support from Jim Gilmore. Had Earley asked Gilmore, Gilmore would have definitely helped him in his campaign. Also, you're cute little jab about "he never lied in his life", it's funny. What we all have been referring to is that it was not Gilmore who did anything poor or wreckless with the state budget (as sited below). So while you think we're attempting to portray Governor Gilmore as something he is not, it is actually you who is unwilling to accept the fact that you were lied to by Mark Warner.

--Is that you, Jim?

The external links in this article, and much of the content, appear to have been written by the Draft Gilmore people. 82.35.233.89 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Governour section of the article seems a bit biased against him "as the state went deeper and deeper into depth" but I don't really feel like fixing it. Just putting that out there.

Tuition Increase and Budgets

As another VA college student (and VMI alum), from 1999-2006, I can with authority say that Gilmore's tuition freeze was in effect for a few years, and actually rolled back prices 20%; this was in effect for all public universities in Virginia. I'll even source it, so no one needs to argue about it anymore: ( http://www.epi.elps.vt.edu/BRC/brc299.html ). You can look up the freeze at UVA's legal library via the web as well, if you care to have a primary source. As for deficits, as someone else already noted, there never was one: ( http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15458 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102289.html ). As for supposed damage to infrastructure, please source; Virginia has a very large transportation budget when compared to other states on a per capita basis, and attracts a disproportionately large amount of federal dollars on highway projects, such as the Wilson Bridge, the HRBT, new paving on 81, 64, and 77, etc.

If there ever was anything that violated both the letter and spirit of NPOV, it was wiki users who have a political agenda and see "bias" where no exists.

--Then I suppose those who think this conforms to NPOV wouldn't mind elaborating on why college presidents opposed the tuition freeze?

-Isn't that obvious? If you cut tuitions for students to attend Colleges and Universities, the college presidents get less money to spend per year. You don't think colleges and universities up their tuitions by $1,000's per year to counter inflation, do you? (edit was do to not checking what I had written in the first place. I apologize for the mistake. By the way, get sources yourself. But also remember that you're reading a liberal medium that caters to people like Mark Warner)

--Right, I forgot that college presidents' pay is tied directly with tuition. It couldn't possibly be that College and Universities are competing for students with infrastructure improvements and funding research. I was willing to buy that this article was relatively unbiased until this Horowitzian statement. You didn't help yourself by replacing "for themselves" with "per year," either. The Washington Post archives host of a plethora of articles about Virginia's budget woes after Gilmore's tax cuts. Unfortunately they are all behind an archive subscription wall, but the titles and abstracts are there for all to see. Please find some sources, this is childish.

--Let's get this straight.. you admit you can't source your information, but challenge others to find sources about the so-called budget crisis precipitated by the Gilmore tax cuts? Nearly every news source reported a budget shortfall during the post-Gilmore years that did not exist. The link I listed above is from the Washington Post itself, which is an article about how the biennial projection was wrong, and that Virginia actually ran a surplus of nearly $1 billion dollars before the tax increases enacted by the General Assembly. Yet you allude to articles that aren't publicly available, and are older than the story contained in the link I posted.

--That is correct, I haven't done the homework to find reliable sources, which is why I have not edited the article. You got me. Your WaPo article does mention that those budget projections did not take into account liabilities like Medicaid and Education payments, so there is at the very least a possibility of creative accounting in that $1 billion figure. I notice the snarky comment about college professors has been removed.

I find it pertinent to point something out here. Someone had mentioned that Governors Warner and Kaine have both removed the tuition freeze that was put in place by Governor Gilmore. Have you ever stopped to think about WHY those two lifted these freezes? Seriously. Organizations, especially institutions of higher education, need a budget to operate. The fiscal situation at Virginia colleges had gotten so bad that schools were on the verge of making drastic decisions. They simply needed more money to operate, and this money had to come from tuition increases. That aside, this page needs to be completely rewritten by someone who can do so in an unbiased way. Its blatant, one-sided approach borders on the edge of unethical.

--This page needs some work, for sure, but as far as bias goes I don't think it's much more biased towards Gilmore than Mark Warner's glowing page is towards him.

--This article is inane. Regardless of whether or not particular Washington Post articles about Budget crises have been found, everyone who lived in Virginia at the time remembers that whatever idiot shills for the Republican party want to say, there was indeed a budget crisis provoked by Gilmore's irresponsible tax cuts. Such raging liberals as John Warner had to step in to side with Governor Warner to fix the mess. You can say all you want that it didn't happen, but that's not going to change the fact that Gilmore has been the least popular Governor of Virginia (try looking at some old approval rating charts) in the last three decades. This article needs to be totally rewritten, but barring that tagged as disputed neutrality right now.

Talk page formatting

The discussion on this talk page so far doesn't follow Wikipedia standards for formatting. It would be helpful if participants would review Help:Talk page#Using talk pages. The key points are: (1) sign and date your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~) after it; and (2) use colons to indent responses, by preceding your comment with one colon more than the comment you're answering. Thanks! JamesMLane t c 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Elaborate ploy" == weasel words

I'm no Republican partisan, nor am I a Gilmore fan. However, that quote from Larry Sabato sounds pejorative. That jumped out at me. I don't see how one analyst's characterization of a presidential run as "an elaborate ploy" is really relevant. --Skidoo 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Our guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, applies that term to phrases like "Some people say" and "Research has shown". The guideline goes on to say, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts." In this instance, I've done the former. The statement is attributed (with a citation) to Larry Sabato, whose name is wikilinked, so the reader who's curious can get more information about Sabato and can assess whether he's qualified to offer an opinion. This is about as far from weasel words as you can get.

That a statement is pejorative is no basis for excluding it from an article. Consider this example from the Bill Clinton article: "Some gay rights advocates criticized Clinton for not going far enough and accused him of making his campaign promise simply to get votes and contributions." That sounds pretty pejorative to me (much more so than Sabato's comment). Especially for political figures, we give the reader a fuller picture by quoting or summarizing notable criticisms. In fact, the Gilmore article currently suffers from a shortage of such information.

You also dismissed Sabato's opinion as being not germane. Forming the exploratory committee is a significant act on Gilmore's part, and Sabato is assessing Gilmore's possible motivation for it. It's germane to the reader's understanding of Gilmore's current political ambitions. If Gilmore has publicly disclaimed any interest in the Senate or Governorship, we can certainly include his statement to that effect as well. Regardless of what Gilmore has said, though, I think the Sabato comment should be restored. JamesMLane t c 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sabato's speculation and use of the phrase "elaborate ploy" is irrelevant, combative, and certainly rises to the level of weasel words. I removed it again.--Skidoo 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, your example from the Bill Clinton article is a non sequitur. We're not editing the Bill Clinton article. Maybe that needs to be changed too. As I said, I'm not a partisan. I suspect you are. --Skidoo 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Gilmore's intentions is relevant to Gilmore's bio. Many opinions about politicians are a lot more "combative" than this one -- that doesn't mean they're excluded from Wikipedia. As for weasel words, you've simply reiterated your opinion without addressing the comments I made based on the actual wording of the guideline. We can cure a use of weasel words if we "name a source for the opinion", which is what this passage does. I'm restoring it. JamesMLane t c 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're a blatant partisan. Larry Sabato's use of the phrase "elaborate ploy" is speculative derision, pure and simple, and does not deserve a prominent place in the relevant section. It's simple logic. I'm removing it one more time. If you revert it, well, then whatever dude. You reveal your true colors at the peril of your credibility. --Skidoo 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we go on and put a negative quote from Larry Sabato in every section? I'm sure you could find some more for us. Pardon me while I roll my eyes. --Skidoo 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Our policy says that we report facts about opinions. We do not have a policy of excluding an opinion because some Wikipedia editor disagrees with it, or assails it as "speculative derision" or whatever. Instead, according to WP:NPOV, we try to include significant points of view. This article already has plenty of laudatory stuff about Gilmore, but if you think there's more that should be added, that's consistent with our policies and guidelines, go ahead. I think the article would benefit from having more information about pro- and anti-Gilmore views, concerning both his governorship and his Presidential candidacy.

As for revealing my true colors, I believe that I do so by discussing edits based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as opposed to simply voicing my personal opinions. I assure you that if I were editing this article without regard to WP:NPOV, the article would look very different. JamesMLane t c 21:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well ... for one thing, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prognosticating elections is Larry Sabato's business, not our business. But there's more than just that. This article is a BIOGRAPHY of Jim Gilmore. It is not an article about the election. This quote would be appropriate in an article about the campaign, but not in one about Jim Gilmore. A biography should be factual and report actual events, not speculation. Even sourced speculation is still just speculation. (Full disclosure - I am a Gilmore supporter and during his 1997 campaign, I was active locally with the GOP.) --BigDT 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy you cite says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) I think Sabato is not prognosticating -- he's discussing Gilmore's current state of mind -- but even if he were discussing the prospects for the future, his statement is properly referenced. As for the relevance, it's certainly relevant to Gilmore's bio to discuss his campaign. As a current and controversial event, it might well generate so much material that it threatens to overwhelm this article, in which case this article should have only a summary and the extra detail should be moved to a daughter article. That's already been done with Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008. In Gilmore's case, however, the main bio article has very little about his presidential campaign, so this isn't currently a concern. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement is properly referenced inasmuch as there is little/no question that Sabato actually uttered those words. But that's as far as it goes. Sabato is not a member of the Gilmore campaign. It would mean something if this statement were from Gilmore's campaign manager or someone else in a position to know one way or the other. But Sabato's only connection to Gilmore is that Gilmore attended the school where Sabato teaches - that inferior school. If a newspaper columnist, blogger, TV guy, or anyone else speculates on Gilmore's state of mind, future plans, or golf score, that's not encyclopedic. If he had done an interview with Gilmore, then he would be in a position to give us reliable information ... but as it is, his guess is as good as your guess or my guess. (By the way, as someone who watches Virginia politics, I'd say there's about a 99% chance that Sabato is right. Why does anyone other than Thompson/Giuliani/McCain/Romney stay in it at this point? But whatever their reasons are, that speculation is not encyclopedic.) --BigDT 23:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't watch Virginia politics, so Sabato's guess is certainly better than mine. That Gilmore attended Mr. Jefferson's university is immaterial to Sabato's qualifications. Sabato is a prominent observer of American politics and voting trends. Your position seems to be that, when there's reason to believe that a candidate is saying one thing while believing another, we can't report that suspicion unless it's confirmed by the candidate or one of his campaign spokespeople -- none of whom, of course, would ever admit such a thing. There's no policy to that effect. We wouldn't report it if it came from some blogger in his parents' basement, but the principle of reporting facts about opinions means that we should report it when it comes from a prominent spokesperson, which the blue-linked Larry Sabato certainly is. JamesMLane t c 03:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sabato is making a GUESS. We don't report some guy's guess, even if he has a blue link, especially not in a BLP. --BigDT 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A statement concerning the operation of someone's mind is inherently incapable of definitive, objective proof. Therefore, any such statement could be labeled a "guess". Your position, if adopted, would mean that we could never report any opinions on such a subject. I still await citation to the guideline or policy that says that. Right-wing opinions are apparently permissible, because the Bill Clinton article, in discussing the Marc Rich controversy, refers to "allegations that Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, accepted payments in return for influencing the president's decision-making regarding the pardons" -- clearly implying that Rodham's involvement was one reason for Clinton's decision. Of course, one example doesn't prove anything. If the refusal to report what you call a guess is a policy, not just a personal preference, then we should apply it to edit the Clinton article, not repeat the mistake here. Nevertheless, I don't think it is (or should be) a policy. Critics of Clinton are entitled to charge that he pardoned Rich for other than his stated reasons. Critics of Gilmore are entitled to charge that he's running for President for other than his stated reasons. (The latter criticism is actually much less harsh.) There's no reason that politicians' bios should be scrubbed of all such references. JamesMLane t c 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(De-intenting) The BBC reporting the fact that an allegation exists is not exactly the same thing as Larry Sabato making a SWAG. If you are looking for a policy that says, "articles should not report Larry Sabato's guesses", you will probably be disappointed. We do have a policy that we are not a crystal ball and we do have a policy that we use reliable sources, particularly about living people. Sabato is making a guess - that guess is not a reliable source and it's not fit for an encyclopedia article. --BigDT 05:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy about reliable sources applies to statements of fact. It's not implicated here, where there's no dispute that Sabato actually made the statement. The same is true about crystal-ball-gazing -- we don't base our content decisions on what we think is likely to happen, and our articles don't adopt anyone's assertions about what's likely to happen, but that's different from reporting a current attributed opinion about what's likely to happen. Wikipedia reports quite a few opinions that it would be improper for us to adopt. JamesMLane t c 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cullen was after Gilmore as Attorney General

Gilmore dropped his Attorney General position and Richard Cullen replaced him...so the box at the bottom is wrong

Cleaning up

I'll be working through this article to clean it up--it looks like both sides of the spectrum have compiled a mess in here. Feel free to comment about any of the changes, and I'll be happy to take a look. --Zz414 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not hearing any complaints, except for a couple of anonymous users, I think the article is much better than it was, both in terms of anti-POV and pro-POV, than it was a week ago. If anyone has any issues, I'm more than happy to discuss them here. In particular, the lack of cited material (especially Gilmore's achievements in office) has been a problem, and the article now neutralizes most of those concerns (which admittedly makes it a little bare, but without citations, that material just can't stay). --Zz414 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Governor of Virginia

The new version of Gilmore's term as Governor is factual with the appropriate citations. The article offers no bias either way on the positives or negatives of Gilmroe's tenure. --Gilmore4Pres-, 20 February 2007

It actually tilted heavily in Gilmore's favor. I kept the cited source for education test scores, but you can't just whitewash the controversies of the car tax, which were a significant component of both Gilmore's term and Warner's election bid. --Zz414

National Security

The national security section is completely factual without any bias with the appropriate citations. --Gilmore4Pres 20 February 2007

Criticism section should be added

Is it not fair to state that AT THE VERY LEAST, some criticism of the car tax relief should be introduced. If not only the FACT that the actual cost was over $500 million more than projected? This not opinion, it is documented truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.248.65 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, not sure anyone was talking about this in the Commonwealth at the time, but to the extent to which a State Governor advocates for public policy which reduces operating expenses for private motorists, one could argue he's aggregating the convenience of the use of private cars and thus stifling investment in more energy efficient mass transit infastructure and, by effect, that governor is retarding investment and development of land near transit lines. And oh yeah a half a billion dead presidents ain't nothin!'Critical Chris (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting closer /x/, You might actually find me. Report back with the code black window on the topic and maybe you'll get your next lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.12.62 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy Black Helicopters!Critical Chris (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ROTC at UVA?

Does anyone have information on whether Gilmore studied German and did ROTC while still an undergrad at UVA? What about his highest rank and assignments while in active duty in what was it...."West Germany?" I believe all of these might make an interesting addition to the article.Critical Chris (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

He was not in ROTC when he was at Virginia, rather active in College Republicans and the Jefferson Literary & Debating Society. He enlisted in the United States army after his undergraduate career. He served in Heidelberg when he was overseas. He also did training at Fort Huachuca in Arizona. I also believe he did language institute in Monterrey, California; though I cannot recall where he studied at this time. I could update the section on his military background, but it would be difficult to cite beyond "I asked him". - Ashton Gatling Gilmore; September 15, 2009

Ashton, I believe these should be added to the article, while I'm aware there are not libraries full of biographies on him, let's get the material in there now; the sources can fall into place later. CriticalChris 22:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if his level of service in Heidelberg rises to that of a "spy". I believe it's more accurate to call it "counter-intelligence", which seems to remove an implication that he was somehow entrenched with the East Germans, which as far as I know he was not. I also will make a note to ask what specific assignments he completed while in Germany, and to my recollection his rank was Sergeant. Good work on the Language Institute at Monterrey, and where he trained in Arizona. Even though it's not Encyclopedic per se, once he returned from the military and was at UVa Law, he met my mother in the Jefferson Society, where she was also a member. I apologize for not editing the page myself, it would be nearly impossible to avoid accusations of bias, though what I would say would be more factual than what most people could find. - Ashton Gatling Gilmore; March 25, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.9.10 (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are to be applauded for your ethics in not editing this article given possible perceptions of you being a so-called insider; Wikipedia has become such a public relations battleground as of late. I don't intend the word "spy" in the pejorative sense in the least; most nation-states believe it's in their best national interest to have spies gather what is seen as needed intelligence, by any means necessary in many instances. These United States are certainly not alone in that respect. As to the implication that he was "entrenched" with the East Germans, that would be quite intriguing if well-sourced. I don't know what would be so controversial and embarrassing about that for a man of his political stature and at his current station in life. Quite frankly, many Virginians and Americans would consider him a hero for such service during a critical period in history. It would make a great chapter or two in an autobiography or memoirs, and there are likely many publishing houses that would take a chance on such a book, not even to mention todays model of e-book publishing. CriticalChris 00:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Derek Rocco Barnabei

in italian wikipedia there is a page about Derek Rocco Barnabei case. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Rocco_Barnabei check it out. bye. Tonii it.wiki --79.17.182.227 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112307228.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

obviously

Obviously Gilmore served in the army before he got his law degree, not after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jim Gilmore. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926182003/http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/Election/results/1997/GOV97DST.htm to http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/Election/results/1997/GOV97DST.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206165156/http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/NewHome/pressreleases/gov032101.html to http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/NewHome/pressreleases/gov032101.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130219051341/http://draftgilmore.org:80/ to http://www.draftgilmore.org/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Jim Gilmore. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061231024104/http://www.roanoke.com:80/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-46661 to http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-46661
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007062035/http://www.ecommercecommission.org/transmittal.pdf to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/transmittal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006174432/http://www.ecommercecommission.org:80/report.htm to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/report.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120727212053/http://www.samspade.in/index.php?domain=jimgilmoreforsenate.com to http://www.samspade.in/index.php?domain=jimgilmoreforsenate.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140207194803/http://www.virginiapatriot.com/ to http://VirginiaPatriot.com

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jim Gilmore. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061207114409/http://www.ecommercecommission.org:80/transmittal.pdf to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/transmittal.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061109101018/http://www.ecommercecommission.org/report.htm to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/report.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

• Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.

• Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?

• Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.

• Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016 Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[3] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[4] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[5] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[6] Discuss on article talk page. Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[7] Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page. Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[8] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[9] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[10] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[11] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13. Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body, Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[12] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability. Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is. Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original) Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic. Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051121110246/http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle to http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855935241&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192260430&path=%21news%21vaapwire
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226103042/https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/5_l_0F4812A9-B835-4B53-9D64-99F6A1DA3945_s.shtml to https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/5_l_0F4812A9-B835-4B53-9D64-99F6A1DA3945_s.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017154332/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/column.rothenberg/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/column.rothenberg/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Jim Gilmore 2016 presidential campaign

Only a few paragraphs of information in the campaign article that aren't in the main article. pbp 17:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support The campaign obviously went nowhere and it can certainly be covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. No objections after six months. Surachit (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)