Talk:Mitch Daniels

message: I've attempted over the years to keep this page current, accurate and neutral but those efforts have often been slowed by the need to cleanup frequent changes to long settled text by unregistered users that appear to be designed not to add to knowledge but to paint the subject in the worst possible light. This occurred again recently and most if not all the edits fall into this category.  Therefore, I am going to undue most if not all of these recent edits, then work on my regularly planned updates and then go back line by line and see if there was anything of value that was in fact added by this unregistered user. In the meantime, if someone catches that I removed something essential, I encourage you to point that out here and we can reach a consensus that way. JA1776 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a number of updates in May of 2022 and those edits have been accepted by the community since then. Recently, an unregistered user manually reverted those changes.  The problem was that in so doing, the unregistered user made the article more out of date.  For example, in my May cleanup, I removed statements based on 2019 financial reports and replaced it with language from 2021.  If the 2021 language is deficient, let's work it out here but please do not just turn the clock back to 2019 and force the article to rely on old information. As such, I have reverted to the May language once again.JA1776 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to add 2021 information without deleting the 2019 information. Respectfully, it feels like you are policing and whitewashing this article. 107.120.35.57 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is disingenuous.  2021 info was added months ago and has been added back twice but unregistered "users" (likely one person with a changing IP) keeps deleting it along with scores of other updates the community has accepted for months now.  All of these edits seem designed not to improve the readability, accuracy or currentness but to paint the subject in the worst possible light. This is the same thing that has been occurring for years on this article and it impedes the ability to keep the article current and fair. JA1776 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unregistered editing  

message: I am going to revert the recent deletion by an IP user (yet another). The claim was that the text was not appropriate because it was contrasting consumer spending with per capita income growth and was therefore invalid. First, the subject of the section is economy and so there is no reason Indiana's speed at which it rebounded from the recession is not relevant. Second, the deletion also deleted a link and sentence that was about per capita income growth and how when adjusted for Indiana's cost of living, the numbers improved. Third, this section relates more to the 2nd term than the first and it belongs there.JA1776 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert your recent addition as it is not supported by facts. First, consumer spending does not reflect growth, if it did Indiana would have advanced, not dropped, when compared to other states. 2600:387:F:551B:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Per the source for the first stat: "The income Hoosiers earned last year grew slightly slower than the national average, leaving the state ranked 38th in per capita income, according to figures released this week by the Bureau of Economic Analysis."  2600:387:F:551B:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there are three sources stating two claims and I have added a third 1.) Indiana incomes grew under and after Daniels leadership when adjusted for cost of living. 2. Indiana consumer spending (an accepted measure of the state of an economy) rebounded faster 3. employment rebounded faster.  The section topic is economy and all are relevant and properly sourced. JA1776 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: The financials of Purdue Global are complex. Moreover, with time, they will become increasingly irrelevant to this article. I propose that most if not all of this section be edited and updated on the Purdue Global page rather than the Mitch Daniels page. Frankly, I think some of the previous section about the acquisition should also be moved to the main article as well.JA1776 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose -  I believe readers are better served with a summary within this article. This is consistent with the narratives included regarding OMB, budgetary measures, DST, highways, healthy Indiana, etc, to name a few. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purdue Global 

message: It will be helpful to other editors if I focus the meandering debate about the Highways section to some core issues. It has three major problems:
1.) It has no citations. Not one. 2.) It repeats several sentences word for word e.g. "offer of nearly $4 billion in cash" and "Manhattan was sold for beads" 3.) It is out of date and does not include sourced and relevant information about how the income from the privatization project has been spent to construct the state's highways.
These three problems were generated by an edit made in September. I am going to attempt an edit that keeps all the content from the current version but also addresses these three issues. I ask that editors work with me to address them.JA1776 (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of citations, and duplication of paragraphs, and removal of an update in Highways section