Talk:Ronnie Musgrove

message: I changed the phrase "defeated" to "earned more votes" because, according to my understanding, Musgrove attained the Governor's office not as a result of the popular vote, but as a result of a decision by the state legislature. It would have been possible for the legislature to choose his opponent, in which case he wouldn't have "defeated" anyone. All I really know about the race is what I read in the NY Times article, but it seemed pretty straightforward to me. But my edit was reverted as reflecting a point of view, so I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. -Pete (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I had forgotten about how he became Gov but I still don't think "earned more votes" is appropriate since I don't see any mention of the fact that the legislature voted for him and the result was him winning that way. Something along the lines of yes, he earned more votes than did his opponent but didn't get a majority so it had to be decided by the legislature, who ultimately gave more votes to Musgrove. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this article, not yet cited here, contains our answer. Musgrove declared himself the winner after the election and called on Parker to concede, but Parker refused to do so; Musgrove therefore did not appoint a cabinet etc. until the House decision, which was 86-33 in his favor. I leave it to you to determine the best phrasing, but I'm pretty sure "defeat" is inaccurate. -Pete (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "earned more votes" vs. "defeat" 

message: I am not certain why there is special attention to the fact that Musgrove's divorce was sealed.  While it is a fact, Musgrove is hardly the only public figure to have his divorce sealed.  The case involves two minor children and its prominent inclusion gives the appearance of bias -- especially when compared to the bios of other divorced Mississippi political figures (see Ray Mabus and Kirk Fordice as reference).  I was considering deleting this sentence, but wanted to discuss here first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PortiaCarrera (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Portia. There isn't special attention to the divorce seal. It's just a part of a rounded paragraph dealing with his personal life. It's properly sourced via a reliable source as well. Additionally, just because someone didn't put sealed divorce info in other articles doesn't mean it can't be in this article. Per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:SOURCE this satisfies the policy of inclusion. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just not certain I understand the relevance.  What does the inclusion of this fact add to the article other than to make the reader wonder why was it sealed?  In reality, most all public figures have their divorces sealed -- especially when children are involved.  Perhaps it stands out because there is so little other information listed in the personal section.  I will find more about his personal life to include to see if it still bothers me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PortiaCarrera (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides that it was all over the news when the divorce happened? It's relevant because this is a former governor of a state. A high profile figure. Just about all things pertaining to him, excepting what time he went to the bathroom, is game for the article - if reliably sourced. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 20:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Divorce Sealed?" 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://ffrf.org/news//2003/musgrove.php and http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=e876ae3effb81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (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.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The comment at the end "However, Mississippi teachers are still the lowest paid in the nation." needs a cite or should be deleted.  I also believe that it is irrelevant as this comment refers to current teacher pay in Mississippi.  Musgrove has been out of office for 8 years.  The legislation that is being referred to was passed when Musgrove was Lt. Governor which was more than 12 years ago.  While this statement may be true today, it is not a result of the legislation discussed, Musgrove's policies, or his effectiveness as governor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortiaCarrera (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education Section