Talk:Tim Pawlenty/Archive 1

Archive 1

2006 Re-election comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overly Critical Pawlenty Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.214.198 (talk) 00:21, July 14, 2006

• • 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)

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. ((Lots of text removed per WP:Not forum .:DavuMaya:. 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding Metro Transit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

((Text removed per WP:Not forum .:DavuMaya:. 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC))) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.149.237 (talk) 23:36, November 13, 2005

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)

The above comment, I can't even remember why but you can read the outcome of Pawlenty and MT here [1] .:DavuMaya:. 21:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Neutrality 2005

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 2006 Neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Personal and Family history

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

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)

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)

• Yes he is eligible [2] EdwinHJ | Talk 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. ((TWO SENTENCES REMOVED PER Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM .:DavuMaya:. 05:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC) View the Log History to see the original statement)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.174.4 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To Anonymous IP. Please adhere to Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM. Although I imagine my statements could be construed as an opinion, I apologize, but it was meant to clarify how to improve the article. The "lot of nothing" I should have clarified was action he did not take to address issues which are not necessarily linked to as you say "(holding) the line on spending." Money does play into infrastructure of course, but leadership also means how you are spending the money, that is what I am addressing. .:DavuMaya:. 05:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Controversies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

Princewally (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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polish-American?

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

Yes! Besides looking like a bonafide Pol, he also has German in him but w/o a definitive DNA test we can't be certain :) Sources: [3] [4]. But Pawlenty is obviously a corrupted Anglicization. I can't find its root in [[5]] And surnames ending on vowels usually end on -ski or -ko. It's probably originally Pawłowski. Polenti is a variant but thats a common Italian name. .:DavuMaya:. 18:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, although they're not terribly common, Polish surnames ending in -y are not unusual either. They tend to be derived from masculine adjectives. Not sure about Pawlenty specifically but I can tell you that it's definitely not an Anglicisation. There are 21 people in Poland with that surname:

http://www.moikrewni.pl/mapa/kompletny/pawlenty.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.70.90 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

New section? Plus lead photo

Governorship I realize will balloon into a huge section if we were to incorporate his 2006 term. Shall we separate into say... Governorship and then Second Term? I know we've put a lot of post-2006 info in the first section but it seems his terms are slightly different in scope and magnitude to warrant separation. And, his lead photo is way goofy but also very poor quality, do we have a better resolution? .:DavuMaya:. 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any more photos of him from the bridge collapse or other events? .:davumaya:. 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out commons:Category:Tim Pawlenty if you have anymore pix, add em! Also in the recent edits, very interesting comparison between here-say and the actual fact. There are some timeline issues and contradictions I have to work and sort out as well. .:davumaya:. 09:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd make a comment that I'm finding some goofy interpretations of sourced material. I guess this is almost as bad as the Twins Ballpark article. Please note, I'm still working on revising existing content, as such I have not addressed weight or bias of the article just yet. Everything will get in eventually, hold your horses. .:davumaya:. 06:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Service??? Or did he not serve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Betz (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope he was in law school during early years and politics from mid-20s on. Though he supports military veterans through uber packages [6] and wants employers to play nice to vets. [7] .:davumaya:. 07:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How would we say go about obtaining permission for his high school yearbook picture? See [8] .:davumaya:. 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting into Second Governorship

I will be spinning off a Second Governorship section which will include the 2006 re-election blurb combined. .:davumaya:. 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion?

Interesting issue. So far anonymous IPs have redone the religion part calling him a Protestant and Lutheran. Definitively we know by sources that he was Roman Catholic (Saint Paul+Polish/German) as a child and now is Evangelical since he attends Wooddale. As well Wooddale is Baptist though that does not necessarily put the label on him. He is simply an "evangelical Christian" right now as it has been reported in various news outlets.

However bloggers are getting confused, calling him "Evangelical Lutheran" [9], public directories like State Lawyers [10] state Lutheran, and the New York Times profile states the same [11]. I'm wondering if this is just an assumption that because we're in Minnesota, that anything is just defaulted to Lutheran. Adding to the confusion is that google sometimes gives Wooddale Lutheran Church in St. Louis Park and that Molnau is a confirmed "evangelical Lutheran." One IP stated Pawlenty "converted to Lutheran as an adult" If so, he only was a Lutheran from the 5 or so years in college before he met Mary, thus I don't think its too applicable but again we have no definitive source stating this so I'm not eager to state it for hecks sake. .:davumaya:. 19:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems pretty reliable. It implies that he goes to Wooddale. --Elliskev 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He definitely goes to Wooddale Church and that church is Baptist. I'm not positive he's a Baptist however, despite the credible citation now there. I think "Evangelical Christian" is true, reliable, and citeable, and I'd be OK changing it to that.--Appraiser (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a separate section labeled "Personal" and under it all the info about the wife's judgeships and his change from Catholicism to the evangelical thing? This should all be under the family section. I think as it stands now, drawing attention to the wife and the religion change by separating it makes it seem like he's doing something inappropriate or weird. If you throw a rock in the Mid-West of America, you'll hit an evangelical. And so what if he wife works for some arbitration company. Just because he's the govenor of some fly-over state doesn't mean she can't pursue her career. What's the big deal?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

July 2008 Neutrality

An anonymous IP who thereafter identified themself as a user commented on a previous discussion that the article is now overly in favor of Pawlenty. I am just baffled. A year ago people were calling DFL favoratism, that it was overly critical of him. It's the same text from last year. I guess we can't please anyone. .:davumaya:. 15:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

not sure where this goes but I took out the section about him balancing the budget for 8 years straight. For one he has only been gov for 7 years. for two the referenced link did not say anythign like that. and three they have been running a deficit for the past 3 years. and last doesnt agree with the info in the budget section of the same page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joulesbeef (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is being blogged about!

[12] Yikes! This guy took it word for word. Thank goodness its actually a true statement. Now you know why I've been uppity about updating and sourcing this page. .:davumaya:. 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Spouse employment

The article says she left her bench job for nonprofit practice... but the National Arbitration Forum is a for-profit business. The website is a dot-com : www.adrforum.com. And the wikipedia article on it refers to it as a company. I changed the text to reflect this and link to the company's wikimedia profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.86.255 (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

VP vandalism probably on the way

Someone should lock this page. It looks like McCain is going to leak him as the VP pick tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.43.138 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Lord, maybe I should stay away from WP until Monday :) .:davumaya:. 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mary Pawlenty should be watched, too. Just in case. --Elliskev 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be watching.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

it's all ready started being vandalied.--91.105.185.40 (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Timothy James Pawlenty (born November 27, 1960) is the 39th and current Governor of Minnesota and a member of the Republican Party. In the Minnesota gubernatorial election of 2002, as the Republican nominee, he was elected Governor of Minnesota and inaugurated on January 6, 2003. He was reelected in 2006, and his second term will end on January 3, 2011. On August 28, 2008, Republican nominee John McCain selected Pawlenty as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Apparently Wikipedia knows something the rest of the nation does not know yet???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.92.194 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Again anon IP, its called vandalism. Speaking of editing. Some new editors to the page are chopping away at the text which is great but they're taking out some beautiful sources that I took forever to find so to new users, please try to preserve some here in case we might use them at a later date. .:davumaya:. 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How is his win in 2006 by 2.3%? Looks like 1% to me. What am I missing??

How is his win in 2006 by 2.3%? Looks like 1% to me. What am I missing?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.236.101 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it means he received 2.3% more of the popular vote than when he was elected in 2002. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Eóin (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First term/second term

Reading the article, I get the sense that this division isn't really working well - a lot of "first term" text mentions 2007 and 2008. I think the division is arbitrary - things that happened in 2005 are related to things that happened in 2007, and there isn't any way to show the relationship if the discussion is split in two. I suggest, if other editors are agreeable, that the two sections be combined. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They were split by me and intended to be filled in eventually. There is enough source material out there, it just has not been put together coherently. But considering the hell this page will ensure in coming days, it would be easier to consolidate for now, I concur. .:davumaya:. 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's easy enough to take split again (though I personally wouldn't, but that's just one person's opinion). I do strongly suggest that the "Political career" section be left as is (in terms of the organization of the article). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's OVER! He's not VP. Good, now just to ward off the stragglers from CNN.com. .:davumaya:. 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cancelling all Thursday interviews?

Does anyone know why he did that? Was it a planned ruse to throw reporters off as to who was the Vice Presidential nominee? Or was there another reason? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a planned ruse to throw off Wikipedia editors. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I suspect the VP search committee called a meeting with all the short-listers, where they announced the selection. The meeting probably conflicted with some of the interviews that had been scheduled.--Appraiser (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean a meeting where all the short-listers gathered together and were told "no"? They were all in different parts of the country on Thursday, so that's unlikely. And apparently Pawlenty was only told Friday morning about not being "it" [13]. So there must have been some other reason for the Thursday cancellations. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By "meeting", I meant a conference call. Did Pawlenty say that he didn't know until Friday morning? That seems doubtful, since he wasn't told to be in Ohio on Friday.--Appraiser (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Twins Ballpark.jpg

The image Image:Twins Ballpark.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

T-Paw

I don't think we should have a citation for the nick-name T-Paw for Tim Pawlenty, as I've never seen this used before in the caption introduction for any wikipedia entry.

However, Tim Pawlenty is frequently adressed as T-Paw. He was addressed as such at CPAC 2008 and you can also check his Twitter account: http://twitter.com/timpawlenty (look at the background) and his personal website: http://www.timpawlenty.com/ See the section: Meet T-Paw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.247.53 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason that shouldn't be cited in his name. I have seen it done before, although I can't point to specific examples. I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to cite. --✶♏‭ݣ 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Needs Greater Concision

Why do you have to read the whole article and connected articles to get basic information? Too much gossip, not enough information... Stevenmitchell (talk)

Boy if you can edit this down, that would be great. I worked only on the "State budget" section, the first and last two paragraphs. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

There's sort of a eerie sort of conservative POV on this article. First, "He is often praised for balancing the state budget without raising taxes" seems to ignore the 6 billion dollar budget deficit. I think this is a factual error Second, "Minnesota liberals have raised concerns about the effects of his budget cuts" makes a point of putting emphasis on the word 'liberals', which has a vitriolic connotation in the right wing. There's dismissal of all 'liberal' viewpoints. A different phrasing should be considered to make it a fact instead of an opinion. The word "conservative" is used to make something seem like a shining glittery success, instead of as an ideology. "Tax cuts" is used in the same way. There's a lot of irrelevant quotes and information in the Governorship section. It mentions all of his successes, but none of his faults.

This article is biased towards the right. It paints him in a positive light instead of a neutral one, and should be rewritten to make things cleaner. I've added a few tags, but I'm not talented enough to do the cleanup myself. Ftc08 (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ftc08. I removed a little bit of POV from the lead just now, thanks for your comments. Sorry I don't know enough about this person to work on the whole article. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire! As a lawyer (Harvard Law) who voted for Obama, I think this article positively reeks of an anti-Pawlenty bias from stem to stern, starting in the very first paragraph. I signed on only to learn a bit more about him, but I was positively shocked to see that so many biased, irrelevant, anti-Pawlenty points, or alleged "facts," are contained in this piece. Wiki should be ASHAMED to even keep this hit job on line at all. It makes me wonder how many many other political articles on this site are equally tendentious. Regarding the "Wiki" rule of "assume good faith," I'm a realistic attorney, so all I can say about that maxim, at least insofar as articles regarding highly polarizing public figures or controversial subjects, say abortion, are concerned, is, "You MUST be joking!" Greg Bader, Eugene, OR

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.210.43 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

POV issue in lead

I think these two sentences in the lead have a POV problem:

In 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Pawlenty had exceeded his authority by using unallotment to balance the budget which is 6 billion dollars in deficit. Minnesotans have raised concerns about the effects of his budget cuts.

Further explanation should be given in the lead concerning his use of unalottment, otherwise it should be removed (although left in the article's body). Otherwise the intent is obviously to shine a negative light on him, which violates Wikipedia policy. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Removed as undue weight for the lead. Also, this is pretty poorly sourced at that. MinnPost is not a publication I am familiar with in MN, and it appears to be a pretty liberal publication at that. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Your change looks good. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This change was added by request on this talk page. Also, MinnPost is a two-year old paper (so I understand your unfamiliarity with it) but it is published by a former publisher of the Star Tribune. It's hardly an inconsequential paper and has its own Wikipedia article if you're interested. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MMfA has an article here as well, but it doesn't mean it isn't liberal. Now, MinnPost may be notable within the progressive circles, but is certainly not a neutral presentor of material. Furthermore, as a mostly unknown source of information it is not a good gauge of notable information. Ruby was able to find a STrib source, so that source should be preferred. Arzel (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Another question: why was this removed:???

As the conservative governor of Minnesota, a traditionally liberal state, Pawlenty (sometimes nicknamed T-Paw,) was dubbed "Minnesota's Ronald Reagan" and has been named a top contender to "reshape the GOP" by the Washington Post. He is often praised for balancing the state budget without raising taxes, however in May 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Pawlenty had exceeded his authority by using unallotment to balance the budget. While these efforts have attracted the attention of conservatives at the national level, concerns related to the effects of his budget cuts are being raised back home by Minnesota leftists.

I propose the lead be changed to:

Timothy James "Tim" Pawlenty (pronounced /pəˈlɛnti/; born November 27, 1960), is the 39th and current Governor of Minnesota. In the Minnesota gubernatorial election of 2002, he was elected governor and was inaugurated on January 6, 2003. He was re-elected in 2006 with 46% of the vote. On June 2, 2009, Pawlenty announced that he would not seek re-election in 2010.

'As the conservative governor of Minnesota, a traditionally liberal state, Pawlenty (sometimes nicknamed T-Paw,) was dubbed "Minnesota's Ronald Reagan" and has been named a top contender to "reshape the GOP" by the Washington Post. He is often praised for balancing the state budget without raising taxes, however in May 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Pawlenty had exceeded his authority by using unallotment to balance the budget. While these efforts have attracted the attention of conservatives at the national level, concerns related to the effects of his budget cuts are being raised back home by Minnesota liberals.

In 2008, Pawlenty was mentioned as a possible pick for John McCain's vice presidential running-mate, but McCain eventually chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. In late 2009, Pawlenty began taking steps that many saw as leading to a 2012 presidential bid. He visited Iowa in November 2009 and April 2010, making political speeches.

Does that sound unbiased enough for everyone? I think it looks well-written and nonPOV. Ruby2010 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed that not long ago as being to puffy. I don't really see the puff, and don't have a problem returning to this lead. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, suggest that if the MN Supreme Court aspect is included a better source be found. Something a little more mainstream with some weight behind it. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to find another source. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the Minnpost link you mentioned. It's completely biased! How did that ever end up in the article to begin with? Found another Star Tribune source that could be used [14] I'll add the lead above to article, with the new ST source if no one objects. Ruby2010 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Scratch the ST source. It covered different material than the Minnpost. I think the latter source can stay however, because though biased, it is citing its opinion on what Minnesota liberals have criticized about Pawlenty's policy. What does everyone think? Ruby2010 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unalottment in lead

Seriously, without explaining further the circumstances behind Pawlenty's use of unalottment, the lead is seriously biased and incomprehensible to someone without advanced knowledge of the circumstances. Below is a previous version of the lead. While some may have problems with it, at least it identifies some background behind the supreme court's decision. I propose either the mention of unalottment gets removed from the lead, or further explanation is provided. Thank you, Ruby2010 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As the conservative governor of Minnesota, a traditionally liberal state, Pawlenty (sometimes nicknamed T-Paw,) was dubbed "Minnesota's Ronald Reagan" and has been named a top contender to "reshape the GOP" by the Washington Post. He is often praised for balancing the state budget without raising taxes, however in May 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Pawlenty had exceeded his authority by using unallotment to balance the budget. While these efforts have attracted the attention of conservatives at the national level, concerns related to the effects of his budget cuts are being raised back home by Minnesota liberals.

And SusanLesch, the "consensus" you claim you and three other users made (although I count only two) does not concern the unalottment sentence I was talking about ("In 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Pawlenty had exceeded his authority by using unallotment to balance the budget which is 6 billion dollars in deficit. Minnesotans have raised concerns about the effects of his budget cuts."). Like I said above, that particular sentence should be removed completely or expanded on to explain the circumstances further. Thanks again, Ruby2010 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Woops, you're absolutely right Ruby2010, the last person to comment was off on his own. I object to this rewrite though. You're placing Pawlenty way too high up the conservative totem pole. Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, but surely you agree with what I said above: either remove the unalottment mention or expand it? Now it just looks biased and negative, which is not Wikipedia's purpose. I propose it needs a complete rewrite. In the mean time, we should remove the unalottment paragraph and just leave the other two alone. Does that sound ok? Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It might sound negative to some people, but it was "one of the most important court cases in Minnesota legal history" (that quote is in the article) so I think it should stay. Again sorry for my mixup. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If I could just chime in here on the unalottment issue being mentioned in the lead, I also think that it would be far more appropriate in the main text of the article and as Ruby2010 said, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to put it there as the casual reader doesn't have enough background to really understand the issue. Moreover, it doesn't make sense sandwiched in between his vitals and the VP blurb. Just my two cents. --Tommie91•Talk•Contribs 09:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed per this discussion and the one below. Even after a little research is not easily explainable exactly what unallotment is. And it certainly is not possible within the lead to explain it. Furthermore I don't know if this is even that notable of an action to be included into the lead. While it may have some historical significance for the state of MN, it doesn't appear to have generated an exceedingly great amount of coverage in reliable sources. Arzel (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was agreed to (despite what you say in your edit summary). Your reading of "reliable sources" comes from where in the U.S., Arzel? A search of Google for "pawlenty unallotment" finds the whole first page of results of good, reliable sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this is notable for the lead. You seem to be the only one that does. Your recent change makes it even less clear what it is that he actually did. "In Solo"? what does that even mean? I never said this issue could not be in the article at all, but your implied claim that this is one of the most notable aspects of his whole career just doesn't hold water. It would appear that this is just an attempt to have something negative about him in the lead. Arzel (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Explain Unallotments and Election Rebates

I used to be active in the DFL, but I left Minnesota in '72. I never heard of "unallotment", which is extensively discussed in the article. This word needs to be defined, either in this article or on its own page. I searched for it in Wikipedia, but this is the only article that mentions "unallotment". I made a brief, unsuccessful attempt to find it in a dictionary. AFAIK, this word is never used in any other part of the world. I have no idea what it means; thus much of the article is hard to understand.

The following paragraph is totally worthless:

"With a high percent of small donors and low percent of large donors resulting in diverse state government, Minnesota legislative and gubernatorial elections had a donor rebate. Pawlenty nixed the political contribution refund using unallotment."

A high percentage of small donors and a low percentage of large donors to what? The Red Cross blood bank? What do you mean by "diverse state government"? How could these donations possibly make such a big change in the government that something had to be done about the donations? Was the donation program cancelled, or is there a provision to refund each years' surplus? What kind of entity is an "election" that it can give a rebate? You have to pay to vote in Minnesota? The next sentence talks about a "refund" using syntax that assumes a previous mention of the "refund" (or assumes common knowledge among all readers). Is there some kind of arrangement, in years of high diversity, in which the surpluses of political campaign committees and political action committees are turned over to the state to be refunded or rebated to the donors or the taxpayers? And then there comes this mysterious "unallotment" thing again. Why is this event notable? How was the money eventually spent? Was it controversial? When did it happen? No context at all. Once again, I have no idea what the hell is going on.

Just two examples of the bad writing in this article; there are others. If such writing is typical of Minnesota's Wikipedians, one might conclude that the quality of Minnesota's schools has suffered terribly in the last half century. You guys have got to know that Pawlenty is currently a national figure, whose bio may be of interest to many people with little knowledge of the intricacies and jargon of St. Paul political intrigues. If Pawlenty is not elected President, in a few years he could be an obscure historical figure, and school children may be assigned to write about him. It behooves all of you to write more clearly. Explain what happened, when it happened, why it happened, and why it was notable. Give us poor readers a break!

If I knew how to flag the article for major copy-editing, I would. — Solo Owl (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Wait: I already did. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Orangemike. I am restoring the paragraph about unallotment using a synonym. Which seems to me a much simpler and straightforward solution that complaining here that "I don't know what that means" and then just removing it. (I guess there'll be some other objection on other grounds. But I can't answer that in advance.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Susan, while I appreciate your attempt to improve the lead, it still is biased and strangely out of context. Some attempt should be made to fix this by expanding further. I'll try to track something down when I have time, or one of the other editors above could give it a shot. In the meantime, I'm removing your addition. Any mention of unalottment or the budget in the lead should be addressed here first before we simply add it willynilly. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzel beat me to it. Nevermind :) Ruby2010 talk 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your critique of my writing, which isn't the best (though I wrote only a small part of this article). May I suggest that you build up the lead with more facts from his career? I'm sorry but the Minnesota Supreme Court decision is important. I'll have a last try at rewording the paragraph, which seems straightforward. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you're the only one that thinks that this should be here, SusanLesch. --Tommie91•Talk•Contribs 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the revisions. Much clearer now. This raises other questions. Apparently the Governor has (or thinks he has) the power to cancel tax refund programs all by himself through the unallotment procedure. Were the majority of donations to DFL candidates or Republicans, or did it break down evenly? This strikes me as relevant. (He didn't, I suppose, cancel deductions for sales taxes and real estate taxes?) — Solo Owl (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think there should be a separate article named "Unallotment". What it is? Under what conditions does it come into play? Notable uses and court cases. How does it differ from line-item veto? Why did the legislature cede this power to the governor's office? There's enough here for an M.A. thesis at least. Couldn't we have a 500-word summary? (Especially since Minnesota is once again producing Presidential candidates.) — Solo Owl (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

$6 billion? Yikes!

Is the 6-gigadollar deficit for the biennium, or per year? Most states do a new budget every year, so it would be better to cite annual numbers. For example, $2.5 billion deficit in fiscal 2010 and $3.5B in fiscal 2011 (or $6B for the two-year fiscal period July 2010 – June 2012), or whatever the correct dates and amounts are. This would make it easier to compare Minnesota to other states. I am guessing here, but $3B/yr strikes me as rather large for a state the size of Minnesota, and $6B/yr would be horrendous. If it is typical, find a source that lists all the state deficits/surpluses and cite it. It is relevant here: Pawlenty had been governor for over 6 years while this deficit was hatching. — Solo Owl (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HRC Back Story: Tim Pawlenty Wants Troops Back in the Closet

This article should be included in his wiki-article:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/01/tim-pawlenty-wants-troops-back-in-the-closet/
Bay Area Native (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

this article is not about frontpage.com

• I hope I haven't 3RR; I wasn't paying attention. That means you can restore the text today, but I will remove it tomorrow. This article is about Tim Pawlenty. This article is not about frontpage.com. Please feel free to start an article on that website, or edit an existing one. Thank you for your time and trouble.  – Ling.Nut 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The edit made by 24.30.136.31 was not an attempt to make the article about frontpage.com. It was discussing Tim Pawlenty's association with Frontpage.com and explaining the significance of that association. They cited the new york times article subsantiating the notoriety and notability of Frontpage, and the brief of their most controversial articles, to further show the significance of Tim Pawlenty's connection with the website. This is not a case of coatracking. --68.231.132.156 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

racist website Pawlenty is associated with

• Dear Ling.Nut2, and others, a single sentence informing the average uninitiated reader of what frontpagemag is about is not "coatracking", which is intended for off subject articles.
• The notability of his association with frontpagemag is mainly due to their controversial stances which have been called racist by the southern poverty law center, among others. Even right wing friends I have known have been turned off of that page by its blatant racism. Now, would a reasonable average uninitiated reader would want to know about an association to a website that is known for what is viewed by most to be full of extreme racist articles, or do you think a reasonable average uninitiated reader would rather just have the name frontpagemag thrown in there with no indication of its significance?
• If you weren't around ten years ago when horowitz went on his speaking tour at college campuses saying blacks should be thankful for slavery and six years ago when michelle malkin went around on a speaking tour to college campuses saying concentration camps are good and we could put arabs in them, maybe you don't see how this association is pretty much as bad as being linked to the CCC or KKK. Now, if someone was linked to the KKK there would be no further explanation needed, because the average uninitiated reader most likely knows what it is. But the Council of Conservative Citizens has a much lower profile and if someone were linked to it, it would be reasonable to have a single sentence saying what it was.
• I would like to also make this point: his views on labor unions are not very unique or notable within the republican party. However, can you name any other republican party primary contenders willing to be a columnist for an organization that openly promotes racial concentration camps? -(24.30.136.31 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC))
  • You are missing the point (even though you explicitly make it in the post above); just because someone publishes an editorial of some sort in a forum or publication does not mean that they agree with/subscribe to every position taken by or in that forum or publication. Your post paints Pawlenty with the same brush as the website he wrote on. That is guilt by association; it is not credible encyclopedia writing. – Ling.Nut 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Everyone could agree with the general logic that just because you write for some publication doesn't mean you agree with everything that publication wrote. However, certain publications are so racist in a fringe extremist way, mainly known for their racist stances, and nationally known for being so that instead the burden of doubt of whether the contributing columnist is sympathetic to the extremist form of racism shifts to the other side where instead you have to prove they are not racist (a public or printed repudiation of the racial concentration camp position would be an example of this, if you have such citation please provide). A reasonable, relatively unbiased average user would agree that a publication that supports concentration camps for minorities is a whole different level than a publication that just has articles against affirmative action. If someone published something in a racist magazine that promotes concentration camps for minorities, a reasonable person would allow the possibilities that the contributor either agrees with those positions, or disagrees with them but is too timid to publicly disagree with them. In the case of politics involving sending minorities to concentration camps, being too timid to publicly disagree with such a stance while promoting the mouthpiece it is being trumpeted from by contributing yourself as a columnist is morally slightly different but not enough to reasonably be immune from fringe racist association. -(24.30.136.31 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
      • Look, guilt by association is an unencyclopedic practice that violates WP:NPOV. That sufficiently covers it, at least in the context of Wikipedia... If you wanna pursue this line of thought, start your own blog. • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Election information in lead

Biographies are subject to very strict policies, especially when these individuals are currently in the news. Since political figures especially are very contentious, then adhering to these rules is vital. The margin of victory is not a necessary item to include in this article's lede. If someone wanted to include it in an article on the 2006 Minnesota Gubanatorial election, then that would fit there. Not here WP:LEAD. Please do not revert again. SeanNovack (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Nice to "meet" you. But just because you think something doesn't mean I agree. I find his re-election numbers highly interesting and the next sentence (that he decided not to run again) flows just fine. So you may revert this, but not until tomorrow when the 3RR ends. In other words I don't plan to revert this. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Susan. Nice to meet you as well. I'm well aware of 3RR, which is why I asked you to self-revert. I find the fact interesting as well. It is, of course, accurate. However, when you are dealing with a introductory, summary paragraph of a biography, I do feel that the fact that he won his second election by less than 1% of the vote is given undue weight when placed in the context of the totality of the life of Tim Pawlenty. While I would not, and am not, suggesting that you are doing this, attempting to include this fact in the lede of a potential 2012 Presidental candidate could appear to be an attempt to portray Mr. Pawlenty in a light that could affect the opinion of his campaign one way or another. For this reason, while I certainly feel that the fact belongs in the article in the section having to do with the Governor's 2006 re-election bid, there is no reason as per WP:LEAD that it should appear in a summary paragraph of a biography on a man's life. If you disagree, I'd like to hear your arguments (other than the fact that you find it interesting) for inclusion. I will not revert this at this time, but I'd like you to reconsider reverting it yourself. If you end up of the same opinion as before then I suggest can discuss it. If we still disagree we can request a formal RfC and solicit other opinions. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The cited source (Politico) put the phrase you object to in their lead and I think it's fine here. I've no more to add to this discussion and no interest in a formal RfC at all. The lead of this article is too short. I encourage you to develop it if it interests you. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The cited source is not an article on the former Governor's life, it is an article in a political journal about the percieved and actual political demographics of the State of Minnesota and how Pawlenty presents them. Stating Pawlenty's margin of victory in his second gubenatorial bid in the second paragraph of an article about his politics is appropriate. Stating it in the first paragraph of an article about the man and his life is not. It is unfortunate that you are not willing to discuss this. Communication is how consensus is achieved. Thank you for stating your position. SeanNovack (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gee whiz. Other things are in progress at the moment (San Diego GA nomination, a commons deletion request, and a long discussion on another person's talk page that is so involved I can barely even read it). So pardon me for not sharing your interest in more discussion. It's a fairly black & white question and one I trust you'll resolve tomorrow. I for one have my hands full at this time. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add my two cents here. I'm inclined to agree with SeanNovack over what content gets inserted in the lead. Frankly, it's odd that the lead only tells us info on his reelection statistics (and not his first term's election, among other things). The short lead means undue weight is placed on a statistic, when there are a number of more important things that could be added to the lead. I say leave it out until a better lead can be decided here, rather than simply going back and fourth reverting and readding edits. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 00:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, Ruby2010. It sounds to me now like a governor serves for six years, but that's fine. Also, would you (or would you allow me to) please remove "on the FOX News Channel" after "first Republican Presidential debate"? Thanks either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned that up and removed as requested. Thanks Susan. SeanNovack (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hosni as middle name??

There are a few references to Hosni as his middle name. Is that correct? Seems strange - is there any explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.110.152 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

At the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, the president referred to him as Tim "Hosni" Pawlenty as a way to just make fun of him. According to this New York Times page, his full name is Timothy James Pawlenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.49.174 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Most important first

The opening line of most if not all bios is a statement of what the person is most famous for. For example, the opening line for Ronald Reagon states he was president, Gov of CA and then an actor. Not the other way around. Hence, Pawlenty's opening bio should state he was a gov, and then the senate state majority leader, not the other way around. Also, most politicans do not state they are a politian, they simply state the office the served. Hence I will change the article to make it reflect this.

This is a relatively minor edit of no substance, so am not sure why it is causing any problems. Most times when minor edits are made they do not need to be discussed at length on the discussion page. Rodchen (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Gov of Minn clearly should be listed first. I'm also not sure why anybody would have a problem with that.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that it should indicate he be listed as Governor first. The only reason I reverted your edit was because you removed information (namely "He left this position when he was elected as the 39th Governor of the U.S. state of Minnesota in the Minnesota gubernatorial election of 2002. He served two terms in that office and on June 2, 2009, he announced that he would not seek re-election in 2010."), rather than just rewriting it (and not raising it at the talkpage). I would be happy to support a rewrite indicating he was Governor (a la Ronald Reagan), so long as the later information on his election and decision to not run again was included. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please use sources to cite the text

Hi there. These three citations appeared in the lead. They are good sources but they don't cite the text there so they don't belong there. Maybe somebody would like to use them (for example George Will's opinion) somewhere else. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding concerning the 2012 election

Tim Pawlenty is now a major candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. That's interesting, but it isn't the topic of this article. When editing this article please keep in mind the policies concerning biographies of living persons still apply, and that we aren't a newspaper. Finally, Wikipedia is most certainly not a place to try to affect the election either for Pawlenty or against him. If anything, details of the election process should be kept to an absolute minimum until after the votes have been counted, unless something were to occur that is in of itself notable enough for its own article. Let's be responsible and keep Wikipedia out of the election on Pawlenty's and all the candidates articles. Thanks SeanNovack (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

State budget

Hi there. User:SeanNovack undid my addition of Arne Carlson's critique of Pawlenty's budget strategy. Gov. Carlson's blogpost is national news and it belongs here. I agree with Sean that the section on the state budget needs to be cut, and did so. Also I apologize for including a photograph of Gov. Carlson which used to make sense but doesn't make sense now. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I'm going to nominate this for good article if there are no objections. —Designate (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I appreciate the GA interest, but don't think it's quite there yet. The early life, crime, media opinions, and public image sections need expanding, and some paragraphs lack citations altogether (2002 gubernatorial campaign, Foreign relations etc). Also, there's quite a few citation needed tags that need fixing, and all of the references have to be formatted consistently. It's a big job. I'm sure if a number of users stepped up, we could get this thing to GA (I'd be willing to help for some of it). :D Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 00:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. —Designate (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Poll numbers

Some more info about his poll numbers and his public approval is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.177.8 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? This is a BLP, not a voter guide. SeanNovack (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a wp article similar to Political positions of Mitt Romney such as Political positions of Tim Pawlenty?

Is there a wp article similar to Political positions of Mitt Romney such as Political positions of Tim Pawlenty? 99.181.132.99 (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, here are all the political position articles people have made. Those types of pages are not very encyclopedic, IMHO, but feel free to start one. —Designate (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Add section of his position regarding Global warming/Climate change?

Add section of his position regarding Global warming/Climate change? 99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lies and disinformation creeping in.

I note that the lies and disinformation are creeping in, both to the article and to the discussion. This is, of course, standard in a Wikipedia article about any conservative (at least we have not, yet, got the New York Times treated as a "reputable source").

For example, Pawlenty is accused of leaving a budget deficit - but the claim is based on spending he opposed (not supported) and is supported by the present Democrat Governor. Also a supporter of Barack Obama is quoted in opposition to Pawlenty without mentioning that this Republican-in-name-only critic is an Obama man and has attacked conservatives for years.

In the discussion people are accused of saying that blacks should be greatful for slavery - and various other "liberal" lies are trotted out. Trying to smear people as "racists" is getting really old.

Why can not "liberals" (of course your belief system is not really liberalism at all - you can not even be honest about what you are) discuss anyone (Pawlenty, David Horowitz - any conservative) without telling lies about them?

And, lastly, what have you got against capital letters? It reminds me of what C.S. Lewis says about devils and the use of capital letters in his "Screwtape Letters" - that capital letters are ineqalitarian, so devils (in the work arch supporters of egalitarianism and social justice) will not use them. If that is not the explination, what is the explination?91.107.88.229 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add any reliably sourced content or modify content which is not properly sourced (or misrepresents the cited source). Regarding capital letters, I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but simply put Wikipedia uses standard English grammar rules and style guidelines enumerated in WP:MOS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody added Obama and Kerry support without a source. "Also a supporter of Barack Obama is quoted in opposition to Pawlenty without mentioning that this Republican-in-name-only critic is an Obama man and has attacked conservatives for years." I cited that statement to George Stephanopoulos who quoted Pawlenty himself. Please use reliable sources for every sentence included here, per Ohnoitsjamie. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad there's a source but it's still ad hominem silliness to me. If Pawlenty criticized someone else for not being conservative enough we would not write "Tim Pawlenty (who supported a cigarette tax and believed in global warming) criticized so-and-so", we would just write "Tim Pawlenty criticized so-and-so" and let his name speak for itself. We can't just throw in random trivia about a person to make their opinion seem invalid. Plus, the source is not George Stephanopoulos calling Carlson a Kerry/Obama supporter, it's Tim Pawlenty saying it. Stephanopoulos isn't responsible for Pawlenty's opinion even if he quoted the guy.

In any case, the Carlson paragraph would be better if we focused on what Pawlenty did, rather than the criticism/praise, but we'll need some better sources to make that happen. Right now all these sources are just quoting the one blog post by Carlson, which isn't ideal. Anyone who can come up with some good budget sources will save the day right now. —Designate (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I came up with the American Enterprise Institute source, which discussed Carlson's thoughts. If there is anything wrong with that then we must be from different planets. :-) P.S. Designate, you use almost 200 characters here to point out Stephanopoulos quoting Pawlenty. That's what my post (to which you're replying) said in the first place. So I have to wonder about the people posting here, out of self preservation. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Political beliefs

I've removed the word "moderate" from before "conservative" in the following description--"Pawlenty is generally considered a conservative on the American political spectrum."

I think it's fair to say that Pawlenty is a conservative, but any additional modifiers are debatable and need to be sourced. In fact, there are a large number of sources that would call Pawlenty extremely conservative e.g. [15] [16] [17]. I think it's least controversial and most accurate if we live his description at merely "conservative". Meelar (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources call him extremely conservative, the third does say that he appeals to all spectrums of conservatives including extremely conservative, but that is not the same thing. Two of the sources even talk about him taking moderate positions. However, that said, republicans are almost always called extreme or far right unless they hold left opinions. Democrats are often called moderate simply by taking a position in the middle on anything. The fact that he was even elected gov of MN is a sign of his moderate stance. Are there any moderate republicans? McCain was until he ran for office, and then he was the second George Bush and a far right conservative. Obama is a very liberal president, yet often gets the moderate tag. It is a double standard that has existed for some time.Arzel (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that saying he's a moderate conservative is, at best, a debatable position. Similarly, saying that he's an extreme conservative would also be debatable, and I wouldn't want to put that into the article. However, everyone (including Pawlenty himself) can agree on the fact that he is a conservative. So we should stick with that in the article and not add a questionably-accurate modifier. Meelar (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Tim Pawlenty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Initial fixes 2 dablinks 35 problem links including 19 dead links. While dead links are not a reason to fail a Good article nomination, it would be nice to see these fixed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Rate Attribute Review Comment 1. Well-written: 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Writing quality is excellent throughout. Some sentences could be reformatted for flow, i.e. "One year later in 1989, at the age of 28, he was elected to a term on the City Council." This sentence just does not sound right. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead is a good summary of the article, I cannot find any of the "Words to watch" Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 2. Verifiable with no original research: 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Citations are very good throughout most of the article. One major issue was found in the section "Book tour and political positions." There is no reference for his opinion on abortion in that section. This cannot go unsourced. The entire first paragraph of that section needs more references. In the section on crime there is a statistical sentence that is unsourced "Early in 2006, after issuing a study that estimated the cost of illegal immigration to the state as approximately $188 million, Pawlenty announced a program for changing the way the state dealt with persons who were in the United States illegally." I would like to see a source for the study. In the same paragraph some direct quotations have gone unsourced "Pawlenty's extensive proposal included the designation of 10 state law enforcement officials as the Minnesota Illegal Immigration Enforcement Team, 'trained to question, detain and arrest suspected illegal immigrants' with a focus on 'such crimes as human trafficking, identity theft, methamphetamine distribution and terrorism.'" Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I have found some areas where the references need to be placed with working references. Ref 127 for the sentence "There were Republican state legislators who supported other cuts of the bonding bill, including Doug Magnus, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Finance Division, who praised Pawlenty's "fiscal responsibility." Ref 87 for the sentence "In May, the Supreme Court affirmed Judge Gearin, deciding that "Because the legislative and executive branches never enacted a balanced budget for the 2010–2011 biennium, use of the unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the statute"." Ref 132 for the sentence "According to a single report in the Star Tribune, "A report on Minnesota's sex-offender program delivered to legislators in the final days of the Pawlenty administration was heavily edited by a top political appointee to reflect the former governor's skepticism about the effectiveness of treatment and to delete arguments for expanded community resources for offenders."" Ref 124 for the sentence "The veto disappointed some of Minnesota's congressional representatives in Washington, including Minnesota's Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who pledged to "raise my voice as strong as I can, as loud as I can. The federal commitment is there."" Ref 144 for the entire paragraph In 2010, he refused federal health care funds including more than $1 billion to expand the number of Minnesotans covered by Medicaid, $68 million for a high-risk insurance pool, $1 million to help set up an insurance exchange where consumers could shop for health coverage, and $850,000 for teenage pregnancy prevention. Pawlenty accepted a $500,000 abstinence-only sex education grant that will require $350,000 in matching state money. Pawlenty said, "It doesn't say we have to apply for all of them." Ref 108 for the sentence "Pawlenty oversaw the repeal of the Profile of Learning Kindergarten through 12th grade graduation requirements and sought to reinstate them during his governorship." The reference doesn't give readers the ability to verify the source. 2c. it contains no original research. No original research. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. There is no information in the article about Pawlenty's tenure as House Majority leader. Information on his work in the House of Representatives should be improved. This section still passes review as a good article per Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not which states that "Point A means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects." Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Throughout most of the article summary style is used effectively, the governorship of Tim Pawlenty could afford its own article with a summary included in this article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. It is very hard to maintain neutrality in an article about a presidential candidate; however, this article does an excellent job of maintaining neutrality. If there is a bias, it seems to be towards the positive end but the article seems sufficiently focused on the facts. Many things that reflect positively on his work as governor are counterbalanced with criticism. See Tim Pawlenty#State budget which is very neutral. I am slightly concerned about paragraph 4 of Tim Pawlenty#Education which states "Pawlenty used an accounting change called a tax shift to balance the state deficit without raising taxes. School districts statewide may unexpectedly lose $58 million in interest and reserve revenue." This does not seem to be written with an eye on neutrality and I believe the major problems occur because the snippet of information is insufficiently explained. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No ongoing disputes. Moderate level of small disputes—fewer disputes than would be expected for an article about a person with this much exposure. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images have valid copyright tags. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Is File:HistoricMNsupreme.JPG necessary? Otherwise everything is good. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 7. Overall assessment. There are many good aspects of this article, but there are also problem areas. The Good Article Criteria are very specific as to the limit of their extent and it appears that the only aspects of the article that do not meet the Good Article Criteria are the lack of citations of controversial information and the statistic I have discussed and the image which is not specifically relevant. Other improvements can be made to this article including, but not limited to, removing the section heading "Political career" (and replacing the level 3 headings with level 2 headings), moving both sections on presidential campaigns to directly after the section on governorship, adding more information on Pawlenty's career in the Minnesota House of Representatives, creating an article on Pawlenty's governorship and summarizing the contents of that section in this article, and fixing dead/problem/DAB links. I am putting this article on hold for a time period of no more than 1 week in order for the citation and image problems to be addressed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Re 6b. Hi. Not absolutely necessary but it is a free photograph by a photographer I know from Wikipedia and I think it helps bring a reader's eye into what was called one of the "most important court cases in Minnesota legal history". Thanks for your comment. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I believe the image is "purely decorative" and should be removed or replaced with an actual depiction of events from the court case. An image of the Minnesota Supreme Court chamber does not provide further insight into the case that could not be had without the picture. If an image depicting the actual event exists it would not only be acceptable, but would also be a great improvement to the article. Hi. The WP:GAN review procedures allow for an additional opinion and I'm going to give one. The structure of this article is absolutely perverse and I cannot see it being given GA status as it is. His governorship is somehow considered outside his "political career", which makes no sense. His career is covered chronologically up through 2002, then suddenly jumps to 2006, 2008, and 2012 before cycling back to 2003-2011. That makes no sense at all either. What was the main issue in his 2006 re-election bid? His performance in his first term as governor, of course, just like it is for any incumbent. But it's impossible for the reader to see that if they read the article in order. What is the main rationale for his running for president? His record as governor ... which again is postponed until after the description of his current campaign. I've looked at, worked on, and reviewed a lot of GA and FA politician BLPs, and I've never seen one with a wacky ordering like this. Compare to GA article Mitt Romney, or GA Jack Kemp, or FA John McCain ... they are all told in chronological order, which is the only way a politician BLP can make any sense. Another problem is the relative weighting. His eight-year governorship gets 35 paragraphs by my count, which may be a bit excessive. Compare to GA article George W. Romney, whose six years as governor gets 13 paragraphs, or to GA Mitt Romney, whose four years gets 12 paragraphs.Note that Mitt Romney's article uses summary style on his period as governor since there is a page devoted to the topic. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Much worse, Pawlenty's ten years in the state legislature, four of which were as House majority leader, gets a grand total of 1 paragraph. State legislatures are important; many of the laws that most affect people are at the state, not federal, level. Compare to GA article Hilda Solis, whose eight years in the state legislature gets 7 fairly lengthy paragraphs, or to GA Mike Gravel, whose four years in the state legislature gets 4 paragraphs, or to GA Scott Brown, whose state legislative career also gets 4 paragraphs. Pawlenty's combination of tenure and rank in the state legislature is stronger than any of these, and to give only cursory one-paragraph coverage of it means the article simply lacks sufficient breadth of coverage to satisfy the GA criteria. I see a bunch of other problems with this article, in areas of content, structure, and style, but these are the two biggest that merit mentioning right away. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your review of the article. I will be analyzing and discussing your concerns in my next edit including possible modifications of the rating I have given certain sections in my next edit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Please note that editors should not impose their own personal standards on a Good article candidate. The Good Article criteria are really rather simple and fairly easy to attain. Comparison to other GA's, while good for pointing out problems the article may have, does not create a basis for failing a good article candidate. In reference to your concerns about the layout. I believe the article uses a more "topical" form of order. Mitt Romney's article is less confusing because he did not seek re-election. Discussing Pawlenty's re-election campaign in chronological order would disrupt the topical order of the article. I do believe that the 2008 presidential campaign section and his 2012 presidential race section should be moved so that they follow the section on his Governorship. I also believe a major problem would be solved if the section heading "Political Career" was removed. While both of these would benefit the article I would like to point out that neither must be carried out in order for the article to achieve good article status and I am not using my position as reviewer to force my ideas on the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) GA aside, Wasted Time R is right about the structure of the article. I think splitting off the governorship and moving the 2012 election to the end is a good start, and I'll do it if there are no objections. —Designate (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Reorganization I'm starting a draft at User:Designate/Tim Pawlenty (proposed rewrite) to see if the article can be rewritten by term. I think it will work out. Designate (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I can certainly extend the hold if you need it, are you addressing the referencing issues? The organization was the least of my concerns. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC) OK, I'll finish the GA as-is and work on the organization afterward. Thanks. Designate (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC) It's only fair of me to state that if the article is passed for GA in its present state, I intend to take it to WP:GAR. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC) You have offered valuable suggestions to improve the article; however, it is only fair for me to state that I will continue assessing this article according to the good article criteria. Note that "The good article criteria measure decent articles" (emphasis in the original). If you or editors at WP:GAR decide to create new criteria then there really isn't anything I can do about it. Since you are so adamantly against this article, could you please point out specifically where you believe it violates any of the good article criteria? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I think that the WP:GA? usage of "decent" is kind of vague and that in practice, the requirements are somewhat more stringent than you think. I gotten about 35 articles to GA and done at least that many reviews of other GA candidates, so I've got a pretty good idea of the level that's currently expected of a GA article. (When GA was first created, the standard were very lax, but a GAR sweeps effort done a year or two ago stripped many of those articles of their status, unless they got improved.) Of course, there is still a good deal of variability from one nominator to the next and one reviewer to the next. But to me, this article clearly does not meet the criteria even given that there is a range of review styles. To be specific, I think that: GA criteria 3a (breadth) is completely unmet by the tiny amount of space given to Pawlenty's time as state legislator including majority leader. To repeat what I wrote above, Pawlenty's ten years in the legislature were important, and it's completely inexcusable for the article to virtually ignore them. GA criteria 3b is unmet due to the excessive amount of space given to his time as governor. (Note that Governorship of Tim Pawlenty subarticle has been created, but currently contains the same contents as the main article section. I know it's a work in progress, but at this moment in time that makes no sense. I also realize that getting the gubernatorial re-election campaign in chrono sequence is a work in progress.) GA criteria 3b is unmet due to the excessive amount of space given to his 2012 presidential campaign, especially fairly mundane developments prior to his announcement of candidacy. Most of that material should be in the Tim Pawlenty presidential campaign, 2012 subarticle not here ... but in fact that subarticle is shorter than the "Presidential race, 2012" section in this main article, which is of course upside down from how it should be. Some of the material could also be moved to a Political positions of Tim Pawlenty subarticle. GA criteria 4 is unmet due to the favorable skewing given to his presidential candidacy. It does not cover anything that's happened after his announcement, when in fact almost everything that's happened to Pawlenty since then has been bad (low poll numbers, poor debate performance in not challenging Romney, mediocre fundraising at best, loss of attention to intra-state rival Bachmann, lots of media stories about how his campaign is faltering, etc). The coming Iowa Straw Poll is seen as a make-or-break moment for Pawlenty, but you'd never know it reading this article. GA criteria 1b is unmet due to the inclusion of a prose-list in the "Approval ratings" section. It's a bunch of poll numbers without much rhyme or reason. Assuming the results aren't cherry-picked, they belong in a table or chart to make much sense of them. (It's best to take just one pollster and include all the results they have; see the John McCain or Hillary Rodham Clinton articles for examples.) GA criteria 1b is unmet due to the inclusion of the "Records" section as a top-level layout section; I've never seen any other article like this do that. If this is needed at all, it should be a footnote. GA criteria 1b/2b is unmet due to sloppy and inconsistent and incomplete formatting of the citations in the footnotes. A number of cites have no dates on them and at least one (#109 right now) is just a bare url. Publishers are sometimes linked, sometimes not, sometimes in italics when they shouldn't be, sometimes not in italics when they should be. Yes, editors have different opinions about how good cite formatting should be for GA, but most reviewers I've seen would find these a bit substandard. Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult here! But I really don't think this article in its present form is worthy of GA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Yeah, this is a lot further off than I thought. I'll withdraw this and try to get it in better shape. Thanks a lot to both of you. —Designate (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Ryan was generally positive about the article, I think, but he pointed out various areas where there is need for improvement. My fairly brief look supports his assessment very closely. Both the positive comments he made and the suggestions for improvement seem to me to be perfectly reasonable. For example "There is no information in the article about Pawlenty's tenure as House Majority leader. Information on his work in the House of Representatives should be improved" is clearly valid, and indeed a similar point was made by Wasted Time R. Turning to Wasted Time R's comments, there are two questions to ask: "how far do the criticisms relate to the Good Article Criteria?" and "how far are the criticisms valid?" Wasted Time R's original comments made essentially two criticisms: the lack of chronological sequencing and the amount of space given to different parts of Pawlenty's career. Further comments have added remarks about other problems, but those two still seem to be the principal concerns. Many of the other concerns could be dealt with very easily: for example "The coming Iowa Straw Poll is seen as a make-or-break moment for Pawlenty, but you'd never know it reading this article" could be addressed by adding one sentence to the article. I can't actually find anything in either the GA criteria themselves or the pages linked to from them that lack of chronological sequencing is directly relevant to. The issue of how much coverage to give each section is related to criterion 3 ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). However, even here, the relevance is limited. Wasted Time R does not actually suggest that significant points are not addressed, only that the amount of space taken up in addressing some points may be too small. So, how valid do I think the criticisms are? I do agree that the present structure is in serious need of improvement. "His governorship is somehow considered outside his political career" is a good point. However, I do not think it would be helpful to move the substantial coverage of his governorship into the middle of the section "Political career", where it would rather swamp the rest of the section. The section on his governorship is different in character from the "Political career" section, and is better kept separate. The "Political career" section does not, in fact, cover everything about his political career, and its title is not totally appropriate. The criticism that it jumps from 2002 to 2006 seems to me to come from the fact that a large part of the section is not really about his political career, but rather about his political campaigns, so naturally it jumps from one campaign to the next. It seems to me that the section should at least be retitled, and preferably significantly restructured, perhaps breaking it into several sections. The first subsection "City and state legislative positions" could be retitled and expanded into a brief summary of his whole political career to date, the next few sections could be retitled to acknowledge that they are actually about political campaigns, and so on. Then giving more detailed coverage to his governorship outside the brief career summary would be reasonable. Alternatively, it would be perfectly possible to more radically restructure the whole article, but what I am trying to demonstrate is that even keeping the present overall structure of the article, some fairly straightforward rearranging of one section would make a substantial improvement in the coherence of the whole, so that I think it is a mistake to think that the whole structure is irredeemably perverse. What about the criticisms of the amount of space afforded to different sections? Certainly there is room for improvement, as Ryan also noted in his review ("There is no information in the article about Pawlenty's tenure as House Majority leader. Information on his work in the House of Representatives should be improved.") I find comparison with other articles of limited relevance, as there may be differences between the two cases which justify the differences. Also, Wasted Time R tells us that Pawlenty's eight years as governor get 35 paragraphs, i.e. 4 and a bit paragraphs per year, compared to Mitt Romney, whose four years gets 12 paragraphs, i.e. 3 paragraphs per year, which is not a huge difference. In any case, a count of paragraphs is a very crude measure of the amount of content. Comparison between the amount of coverage of Pawlenty's time as governor and of his time in the state legislature is more relevant, and I think there certainly is need for an adjustment there, as Ryan also acknowledged in the quote I gave above concerning Pawlenty's work in the House of Representatives. However, I am not convinced that the number of years should necessarily be closely correlated with the amount of coverage given. Someone may spend a lot of time doing a job in a fairly routine way, with nothing much of note to record, or spend a short time doing a lot of very notable stuff. I think a much better test is how much significant stuff there is to report, as compared to how much coverage of minor matters there may be. As far as that is concerned, I do see some details which to my mind are given excessive coverage. For example, consider "Pawlenty was visited in 2004 by Mexican President Vicente Fox in talks to strengthen trade. Fox announced that his country would open a consulate in Minnesota the next year, removing the need for Mexican residents in the state to travel out of state for identification papers and other materials." I think the second sentence there is only of very marginal significance in Pawlenty's career, and I would have left it out. I am not even sure how significant the first sentence is in relation to his career as a whole: I don't have the relevant background knowledge to be able to make that assessment. I have just given one example which has caught my eye, but my impression is that there are probably numerous details which might be viewed in a similar light, so I think there is probably some justification for the view that the section on the governorship gives too much weight to minor details (and that is relevant to the GA criteria). However, that must be assessed on the basis of how significant the details given are, not on the basis of a count of paragraphs. My conclusion is that there is certainly significant basis for criticism in the areas mentioned by Wasted Time R, and need for improvement. However, I think the terms in which Wasted Time R expressed those criticisms go beyond what I would regard as justified. For example, the structure of the article does indeed need improvement, but "the structure of this article is absolutely perverse" is, I think, significantly overstating the case. Wasted Time R says "if the article is passed for GA in its present state, I intend to take it to WP:GAR" and "I really don't think this article in its present form is worthy of GA status". However, I don't understand that. Right from the start Ryan's review mentioned areas of concern which need improvement: is anyone actually suggesting Good Article status for the article "in its present from"? I agree that the issues do need to be addressed before GA status can be considered, but those issues can be addressed with a moderate amount of work. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Just to clarify a couple of points. Contrary to what you say, I do claim that significant points have not been addressed, both in the "Minnesota House of Representatives" section and the "Presidential race, 2012" section. And you're not seeing Ryan's original review that my first set of comments were reacting to. This is his original review, and it says for 3a "Main aspects addressed: career, policies, personal life." and for 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Both of which I strongly disagreed with. The Ryan comments you reference above ("There is no information in the article about Pawlenty's tenure as House Majority leader ...") were made in reaction to my original comments. Finally, was my language too strong a couple of times? Maybe; I was trying to make a point emphatically, and I apologize if I came across too strongly. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC) When Wasted Time R originally posted, the article was poorer and Ryan's review was less detailed. They've both been edited since, which is the reason for the tone discrepancy. —Designate (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) The above comment of mine is actually a somewhat edited version of an initial draft written on 5 August, when the article was still in the state it was in when Wasted Time R's first comment was written. However, I admit that I didn't think to check back to see if Ryan had edited his original review here, and if I had done so I would probably have worded my comments somewhat differently. Nevertheless, I don't think that doing so would have substantially changed what I wrote. I agree that at the time of the review and Wasted Time R's response to it the article fell a good way short of good article status, but I still think that the problems were not as deep-rooted as Wasted Time R made them seem. Those were, I think, the main points I tried to make, and they are not significantly changed by knowing that Ryan's original review failed to include some of the critical points which are (rightly) there now. I have had a quick glance over the changes to the article since then, and they seem to be improvements, but I have not studied them in depth. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct terminology for seeking the nomination

What is the correct terminology for seeking the nomination? Currently, it says in the intro that "he officially sought the candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination from May to August 2011". He officially sought the candidacy for the nomination? That doesn't sound right. Should it be, "he officially sought the nomination"? Or did he only have an exploratory committee and was never a candidate? --B (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism invitation

• FYI, on the August 7, 2012 edition of the Colbert Report, Colbert pretends to vandalize Pawlenty's wikipedia article to state that, among other things, Pawlenty was named Romney's vice presidential nominee on August 10, 2012.[18].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

correct. Suggest close supervision. --Tallyho (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It is full protected. Ryan Vesey 15:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

USA Today is now reporting that Colbert also invited viewers to ""make as many edits as possible" to the entries of possible Romney running mates." I suggest maintaining full protection until the election. Wikimedia may wish to investigate with legal on his urging viewers to perform what is essentially a felony denial of service upon Wikipedia.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, there's nothing to be gained with a public fight, nor is he advocating a felony. Nor are we going to fully protect all of the articles for three months. This article is a perfect case, though, for pending changes. It would be adequate if we had semi-protection + pending changes review for non-reviewers. Unfortunately, this violates some notion of wiki purism, so we are left with what we have. --B (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't followed other articles to see what was vandalized (Marco Rubio was for sure). Protection might be necessary on this one for a week or so, the others ones can probably be unprotected earlier. I don't see a huge need for full protection, we can just block the accounts since none of them will be here to improve the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing here that warrants full protection - semi, yes - and B of course is right that this is why we need pending changes. I object to the full protection here and would like to see some rationale. Semiprotection would fend off the drive-bys, and there are enough watchers to take care of vandalism from registered accounts. Full protection should only be instituted for a very short time if at all, and I'm not feelin' it here. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Further - as of a check a few minutes ago, none of the other pages that Colbert mentioned are under full protection: Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan. So why is Pawlenty? Not the way to go. Tvoz/talk 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for it either ... there were two vandalism edits after the semi-protection ... not exactly something insurmountable. --B (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you downgrade it or should I bring it up at WP:RPP? Ryan Vesey 01:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have expired in a few hours anyway ... done. --B (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request re 2012 VP finalist

Replace this final paragraph from the intro:

Pawlenty was rumored as a contender for both the Republican president and vice president nominations during the 2008 election, and he officially sought the 2012 Republican presidential nomination from May to August 2011

with this:

Pawlenty was rumored as a contender for both the Republican president and vice president nominations during the 2008 election. He again sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and after withdrawing from that race, became a finalist to join his party's nominee on the 2012 ticket as its vice presidential candidate.

Citing this reference:

<ref name="cnn20120812cland">{{cite news
|title= Ryan's clandestine journey to Romney's ticket went from 'surreal to real'
|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/12/politics/ryan-secrecy/
|date=August 12, 2012| accessdate=2012-08-15
|first=Rachel |last=Streitfeld
|publisher=CNN}
}</ref>

72.244.204.12 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I've merged this text into the existing text and added the reference you included. Theopolisme _:) 14:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)