Talk:Jim Gilmore

message: This article seems a bit biased to me.  There is no criticism stated of Gimore, especially in regards to his reduction of the car tax, despite the fact that he was critized for the deficit and tax burden problems brought on by that move . Could someone look into this?
--A bit!?!?? This article could have been lifted straight from the Republican Party's website, and I would not be surprised.
I removed the most flagrant Republican bias and replaced it with a NPOV.  As a VA college student, I can tell you that there is NO WAY tuition went down by 20%, so I removed that bit.  Otherwise, everything else is basically preserved but with a NPOV.
What does everyone think?
This article seems quite biased to me too.
This is beyond biased.  Gilmore's tax cuts did serious, serious damage to VA's economy and infrastructure.  Rewrite!
Gilmore cut tuitions by 20% in 1999 and then froze tuition for the remainder of his term.  It was a widely documented public policy approved by the Virginia General Assembly over the muted college presidents.  Gov. Warner and Gov. Kaine lifted the tuition freeze and tuition has virtually doubled since 2002.   Gov. Kaine signed legislation in 2006 that calls for up to 9-10% tuition increases in future years.  The current Va. college student disputes that Gilmore cut tuition by 20% in 1999?  S/he was probably in junior high school when it occurred and should become more knowledgable before editing history s/he has no knowledge of.
To whom it may concern:  Whatever you have been told about these tax cuts causing serious damage to VA's economy is completely false.  In fact, it has been recently uncovered that there was no budget deficit in Virginia.  At no time did Virginia have a budget deficit from Gilmore's tax cuts.  In fact, before Mark Warner ever raised taxes, there was a $600 million surplus in the budget of Virginia.  Also, if there was such a budget crisis, how did the budget of Virginia increase from $40 billion to ~$67 billion during the so called "crisis".  Just so you do not believe that I'm entirely biased:  Mark Warner's administration recently released information that his last budget was off by about $145 million, making his administration seem better than it really was.  So the question to ask should be:  Was Mark Warner ever telling us the truth, or is he just inept fiscally?  Which do you think he would prefer?  Maybe his recent pullout of the 2008 contest has something to do with him lying to Virginian's for 4 years?  Jim Gilmore has never lied about anything during his administration; he was always honest and forthright.  He was successful, popular and the epitome of what conservatism should be.  These facts alone could explain why democrats hate him so much and why Republicans praise him.
--Care to add 'He never lied in his life' (which now reads above "...has never lied about anything during his administration")to the article, perhaps with some sources?  And last I checked, he wasn't popular enough to bring Mark Earley in on his coattails.
-You obviously do not know very much about the campaign of Mark Earley.  Mark Earley never asked for  any campaign support from Jim Gilmore.  Had Earley asked Gilmore, Gilmore would have definitely helped him in his campaign.  Also, you're cute little jab about "he never lied in his life", it's funny.  What we all have been referring to is that it was not Gilmore who did anything poor or wreckless with the state budget (as sited below).  So while you think we're attempting to portray Governor Gilmore as something he is not, it is actually you who is unwilling to accept the fact that you were lied to by Mark Warner. 
--Is that you, Jim?
The external links in this article, and much of the content, appear to have been written by the Draft Gilmore people. 82.35.233.89 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

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

message: I'll be working through this article to clean it up--it looks like both sides of the spectrum have compiled a mess in here.  Feel free to comment about any of the changes, and I'll be happy to take a look. --Zz414 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not hearing any complaints, except for a couple of anonymous users, I think the article is much better than it was, both in terms of anti-POV and pro-POV, than it was a week ago.  If anyone has any issues, I'm more than happy to discuss them here.  In particular, the lack of cited material (especially Gilmore's achievements in office) has been a problem, and the article now neutralizes most of those concerns (which admittedly makes it a little bare, but without citations, that material just can't stay). --Zz414 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up

message: Is it not fair to state that AT THE VERY LEAST, some criticism of the car tax relief should be introduced.  If not only the FACT that the actual cost was over $500 million more than projected?  This not opinion, it is documented truth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.248.65 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, not sure anyone was talking about this in the Commonwealth at the time, but to the extent to which a State Governor advocates for public policy which reduces operating expenses for private motorists, one could argue he's aggregating the convenience of the use of private cars and thus stifling investment in more energy efficient mass transit infastructure and, by effect, that governor is retarding investment and development of land near transit lines.  And oh yeah a half a billion dead presidents ain't nothin!'Critical Chris (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy Black Helicopters!Critical Chris (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section should be added 

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

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

message: Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jim Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926182003/http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/Election/results/1997/GOV97DST.htm to http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/Election/results/1997/GOV97DST.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206165156/http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/NewHome/pressreleases/gov032101.html to http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/NewHome/pressreleases/gov032101.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130219051341/http://draftgilmore.org:80/ to http://www.draftgilmore.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jim Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061231024104/http://www.roanoke.com:80/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-46661 to http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-46661
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007062035/http://www.ecommercecommission.org/transmittal.pdf to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/transmittal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006174432/http://www.ecommercecommission.org:80/report.htm to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/report.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120727212053/http://www.samspade.in/index.php?domain=jimgilmoreforsenate.com to http://www.samspade.in/index.php?domain=jimgilmoreforsenate.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140207194803/http://www.virginiapatriot.com/ to http://VirginiaPatriot.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jim Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061207114409/http://www.ecommercecommission.org:80/transmittal.pdf to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/transmittal.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061109101018/http://www.ecommercecommission.org/report.htm to http://www.ecommercecommission.org/report.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.  
Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
*Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use :Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
*Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".  The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? 
*Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
*Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.
The forty candidates are:
Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
* Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
* Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism  Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.    
* Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
* Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. 
* Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
* Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
* Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
* Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."
* Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. 
* Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. 
* Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
* Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
* Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
* Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
* Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
* Name: Rod Silva (businessman)  No Infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
* Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
* Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion 
* Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian". Discuss on article talk page.
* Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.
My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements. 
You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.
Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for infobox religion? 

message: Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.
As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
*Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use :Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
*Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".  In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? 
*Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
*Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
*Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
*Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.
Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing religion from infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051121110246/http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle to http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855935241&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192260430&path=%21news%21vaapwire
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226103042/https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/5_l_0F4812A9-B835-4B53-9D64-99F6A1DA3945_s.shtml to https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/5_l_0F4812A9-B835-4B53-9D64-99F6A1DA3945_s.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Gilmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017154332/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/column.rothenberg/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/column.rothenberg/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Only a few paragraphs of information in the campaign article that aren't in the main article. pbp 17:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Merger complete.   No objections after six months. Surachit (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Jim Gilmore 2016 presidential campaign]]