Talk:Scott Walker (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Photo

Could we add a photo of Scott Walker to this article? JoeyLovesSports 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of long for a relative nobody isn't it? Boils (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we now add a less propagandish photo to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.227.84 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree very much propaganda. He's a true (red, white and) blue! Anyhow, +1 for a different photo, one more encyclopedic... --69.217.162.195 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting stimulus funds

"In spring 2009, Walker faced scrutiny for opposing the stimulus funding (the ARRA) proposed by President Barack Obama, believing that the stimulus dollars had too many restrictions attached. Walker faced a brief a recall effort due in part to his reluctance to accept the Congressional stimulus funding."

The above sentence is misleading. It should read, "In spring 2009, Walker faced scrutiny for refusing to pursue the stimulus funding (the ARRA) proposed by President Barack Obama, believing that the stimulus dollars would require an additional contribution from taxpayers."

This is an accurate portrayal of Scott Walker's position, and is based upon op-eds written by Walker himself that were published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Wall Street Journal.

Furthermore, this article linked to a piece written by a columnist (Steve Schultze), who was discredited for collaborating with the state government against Walker. The following link shows copied emails between the state government and the reporter. http://www.thehispanicconservative.com/mjs-works-with-doyle-to-ambush-walker.html

Also, the following should be omitted, "Walker faced a brief a recall effort due in part to his reluctance to accept the Congressional stimulus funding."

There are no legitimate sources suggesting this to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Political-one (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Somebody made some edits that have completely done away with NPOV. Someone please fix, examples of this includes the fact that ". As an alternative to actually funding good schools, good roads and efficient state services, Walker has proposed bringing his own lunch to work and hoping for the best." 65.29.15.134 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Walker promised to ship liberals out of town on a rail and hit on his campaign themes of personal and government frugality" doesn't strike me as NPOV, and it's not cited; if anything, the phrase about liberals is inflammatory. Paris1127 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Took office at midnight

{{Edit semi-protected}} Is now 45th governor, sworn in , additional ceremony today; remove elect from governor box near botto, reveal order of precedence block (Iowa should be Culver). Please update current governors template also. 75.202.30.140 (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Already done someone got it. CTJF83 chat 17:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Revisions to the entire article

I have just made a review of the entire article and made many copy edits to remove POV phrases (both positive and negative) per WP:NPOV, removed first names per WP:SURNAME, and also removed off-topic info about other candidates etc. I have also re-organized the article, most notably the Personal Life section (which belongs at the bottom of the article) and arranged his Career info by date rather than by topic as it is more neutral that way. That is: when arranged by topic, editors have to decide where to put things, but when arranged by date there are no personal decisions, its obvious where things go and there is no temptation to combine facts to create an effect, or possible POV. That said, I am not perfect, and I am only one editor. So if you disagree with some changes I've made, I am open to discussing them here and I value the opinions of other editors as WP is, after all, a collaborative project. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Really good stuff. I am giving it a go through as well. Many of the cited sources are no longer there - trying to patch up with current citations. Also have noticed a few discrepancies between sources and what is actually stated in articles. Midlakewinter (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

2011

The following sentence from 2011 section: "In February 2011, Walker stated he wanted to end collective bargaining for nearly all public employees" lacks context and accuracy. In fact, Walker stated he wanted to end VIRTUALLY all collective bargaining rights, but that salary/wages would still be on the table. This is per the following article, and this sentence about Walker's platform should be revised immediately to convey proper context. http://www.fox21online.com/news/gov-walker-wants-virtually-stop-collective-bargaining

How much more biased can the 2011 section get? Someone really needs to look into that. Well, since these are exact quotes from him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.139.193 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What copy would you suggest? e.g. "In February 2011, Walker stated he wanted to end collective bargaining for nearly all public employees, excluding salary."Midlakewinter (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Policies As Governor" Seriously Needs Up-To-Date Additions

I was stunned to note that the "Policies As Governor" section does briefly describe some of the legislation Walker is proposing, but has no description at all of the widespread strikes and virtual uprising of Wisconsin workers which greeted these proposals during the week of February 14th. Tens of thousands of Wisconsinites have flooded the state capitol in protest. The events of this week may be the most crucial of Walker's career, and they should have been fully described in the article. Correct this, please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungGoldChip (talk • contribs)

In addition it should be clarified that Walker proposed the use of the National Guard only for replacement workers for prison guards. The current draft implies martial law.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.219.103 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to edit the boldly edit the article (WP:SOFIXIT) with information from reliable sources. Midlakewinter (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Family

Is Governor Walker related to the Bush family Walkers? I know that Jeb Bush did a fund raiser for Scott Walker, which seems a bit odd, but I don't have access to databases that would show if there is a familial relation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicocat (talk • contribs)

Presumably not; nobody's ever mentioned such a thing in Milwaukee, and both his friends and foes would have exploited such a kinship among their own supporters. (Likewise, although to a much smaller extent, with regard to former Illinois governor Dan Walker.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I found an article with an intriguing title "Next Wisconsin gov has Boone family roots", but unfortunately the author is referring to Boone County, Illinois. KeptSouth (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 192.247.47.4, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The second paragraph is a biased paragraph and must be eliminated or revised to be neutral. It would be correct to say

"Governor Walker is notably known for a proposed budget in February, 2011 that would remove Collective Bargaining from public sector Unions. This proposal generated protests from both opponents and supporters."

The paragraph as it stand is not only biased, but makes an assumption about (1) whether the use of police force was illegal, (2) the constitutionality of the proposed bill, and (3) whether there is even a First Amendment issue. 192.247.47.4 (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Tentontunic (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture

This picture is a little bit ridiculous! It's more flag than anything. Couldn't we crop the right side out so as to focus on the man instead of the flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apjames (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the current pic (with the boxing gloves, apparently from a negative campaign ad) is very appropriate, given the conflict that's going on in the state right now. Doesn't come off as very governor-like, anyway; I don't see one pic of the Terminator on Schwarzenegger's page. 76.121.46.94 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the pic is from Scott's own ad - where at the end, he says he "is ready to go the distance" to cut government and brings his gloves up. [1] I removed the pic from the infobox in response to your objections. Then I moved it to the campaign section where it seems to fit. Interesting ad - if you watch it, you might get the impression, as I did, that Walker intends to be politically combative.KeptSouth (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your change; it makes more sense there and doesn't set the tone for the entire article. I definitely got that impression from that ad. 76.121.46.94 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a better, less blurry, more profession and or official photo of Mr. Walker then the current one at the top of the page. Perhaps one that doesn't catch him showing an odd facial expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdw3franklin (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Early Life and Education section

I must say that I find the current text to read awkwardly and give undue weight to the subjects departure from college. This kind of text indicates that the controversy between editors is taking precedent over the interests of the reader who could care less about the details of Walker's departure from college. I also object to this sentence below as it is off topic. It is a statistic about the Governors office and not a fact about the subjects life. It does not belong in a BLP and should be moved to the Wisconsin Governor article, in my opinion.

• "He is the first governor of Wisconsin in 64 years to not have a college degree."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "precedent over the interests", but this is a relevant fact about Walker, especially in light of the ongoing controversy and continuing and somewhat overblown charges about him dropping out or flunking out, then currently the charges about him not respecting teachers, wanting to make "draconian" cuts to the K-12 public schools, want to split up the university system, etc. The true and verified fact is that he quit college, preferring to work full time once he got a good job -- and that is what this article states, using reliable sources. I agree the sentence about 64 years is out of place and ungrammatical and I have removed it, and may move it to the governor's article if it seems to fit there under Wisconsin Governor#Gubernatorial facts--Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)--

Agreed. There seems to be some obsession among some editors with making multiple mentions that Walker did not get his degree. A single statement to that effect should be sufficient. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The lack of degree is only mentioned in one section, so I don't know what you mean by "multiple mentions". If you mean that it takes more than one sentence to describe, then I think you are wrong. Sometimes, it simply takes more than one sentence to fairly describe something. I repaired the non-grammatical, incomplete sentence "[he] attended Marquette University from 1986 to 1990, earning 94 credits, but about 36 credit hours short of graduation, with a grade point average in the C's" by adding the word "leaving" to it. Without the addition of that NPOV word, the sentence does not make sense. KeptSouth (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"The lack of degree is only mentioned in one section..." That statement only works if you are looking at a snapshot of the page at a specific time. I'm referring to the overall edit history. Furthermore, "multiple mentions" is not the same thing as "multiple sections." Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things: Grammar---> "He is the first governor...TO NOT HAVE a college degree." <----This is a split infinitive. It should read "NOT TO HAVE" Secondly, it DOES matter that he doesn't have a college degree. The reason he dropped out of college with only 36 credits left to go is even more important: He was asked to leave by Marquette University because HE WAS CAUGHT CHEATING. Check on that. It's true and says a lot about the character of the man we unfortunately elected. [user: ExposeU] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExposeU (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for this assertion, you should add it to the article, otherwise, it's a violation of BLP policies to discuss it here, please see WP:BLPTALK which says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate", and "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories". I will look for a reference that supports the claim, but if I cannot find one, and you don't reply, I will remove it per the same policy which says "Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion." --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point on the grammar. However my point it is that its not a concern of a BLP how many Gov's have had or have not had degrees. This is a statistic for another article. Also, I don't mind a one sentence mention that Walker left college in his senior year but having mulitple sentences about it ie his GPA, why he left etc, gives a minor detail in his life too much emphasis and violates WP:UNDUE.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Koch

Is this edit really appropriate?[2] It seems like a POV edit on Walker. Truthsort (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Was one of the biggest contributors..." is weasel wording. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed. As such, we should make with the specific facts while discounting such vague statements as "one of the biggest..."

Furthermore, it's highly unusual to name specific campaign contributors to a campaign on Wikipedia. The statement should probably be axed. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The original edit mischaracterized what the New York Times article stated anyway. The New York Times did not ever state that the Koch brothers gave to Walker and the reference to the Wisconsin thing was a pure stretch. It really should be entirely axed.--Corbridge (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is/has been a Democratic talking point for the past year+. Try to link everyone to the big bad Koch brothers. The focus on "One of the biggest donors" is clearly a political statement and is being inserted for political reasons only. That this was of no interest during the actual election, but now is because of Walker's attempt to limit Collective Bargaining only furthers that this is purely political.

It is not only undue weight, it is POV, and OR in the attempt to link Walker to some nefarious group. It is also BLP, becuase it's inclusion as such inplies that the Koch's are "bad". That the NYT thinks it is "relevant" is hardly suprising given the biased nature of their reporting, and if Gamaliel wants to reinsert this I suggest he come here first and discuss. Arzel (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the comment regarding Koch should be removed. My only concern is that it is not a BLP issue because the statement is true. Libel requires that the statement be false in addition to defamatory ("bad").--Snarfherder (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with the legalese. It is a BLP issue whether is is libelous or not. Libel is NOT the standard that Jimbo has defined. Please stop.--Corbridge (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV, "bad" or negative material (properly sourced) can definitely be added to a BLP. The only reason specific to a BLP such material would be removed is if its unverifiable (true for any Wiki) or libelous (especially concerning for BLP's). Decrying "legalese" is just your way of being argumentative over nothing.--Snarfherder (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop repeating incorrect information. There are many, many other reasons to take out information other than the two you listed. Something might be given undue weight, which applies here, and it removed. Or something is off topic or something is not encyclopedic, etc. Please stop with the oversimplified explanations.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I never disagreed that those are valid reasons. In fact, I agreed with Arzel specifically on grounds you mention (which you would notice if you had read my original post.) My point was that it is not necessarily a BLP issue.--Snarfherder (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree its not appropriate unless its a quote from a reliable source and does not create undue weight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Election boxes redone for US elections

I really do not see the value of having a percentage +/- field in the election boxes for US candidates, and it appears that format was designed for British elections.Template:Election box I suppose it might be useful to show a situation where one party is gaining or losing strength, but in this case, some of the figures would be misleading. For example, there are two instances where Walker ran unopposed in a general election, 1994 and 2000. If the +/- is filled in, for the 1996 contest, Walker will have a -38%. If it is filled in for 2000, Walker will have a +32%, but the supposed gains or losses additionally or entirely represent the fact that there was not an opponent in two of the elections. This of course, sets up an apples to oranges comparison with the other elections. Also, where Walker is running as an incumbent, the percent change column reflects a growth in his support; however where he is a not an incumbent, the percent change reflects his gain or loss as compared to the prior incumbent or Republican challenger. Because the +/- column can mean so many different things in this article, and because an explanation of the differences would involve original research and/or excessive footnoting and the introduction of a level of detail which is not helpful to readers, and because it appears there is a US form which is more suitable, I am using that and eliminating the +/- column.See Template:Election box/US blanks, and Template talk:Election box#Change column. —KeptSouth (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A separate issue that I'll add to the discussion is the cumulative size of the elections section. It seems like it'd be possible to present the material much more compactly in a single table instead of 11 separate boxes. I suppose they're standard, and it wouldn't be a problem with someone who's only been in a couple of elections, but for a career politician it gets rather unwieldy. Just a thought.   Will Beback  talk  12:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is a good thought, but the Template:Election box which I used, is the standard template for now, and was being used for Scott Walker long before I added the missing campaigns. I will say that when I switched to the US format eliminating the percentage change box and correcting the formatting to include uniform bolding and winner first, it made the electoral history more readable at a glance and it is still a quick, informative read.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Archiving of talk page

I am thinking about setting up an auto archive of this talk page for every 14 days for now, as it seems this page is getting lengthy and unwieldy, and archiving of talk pages is standard for such pages. Will wait for two days for comments here.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done KeptSouth (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Walker's run for student government

Why is Walker's run for student government at Marquette and the events surrounding it being deleted? The same editors have left in his childhood political camp participation and his time at the university, but have removed the unsuccessful Marquette run and the reprimand he received for his campaigning, even when they are posted with citations. These events are clearly part of his background as a politician and important for that context.

This was the latest version that was eliminated. The primary source was the Marquette Tribune.

While a student at Marquette University, Walker ran unsuccessfully for president of the Associated Students of Marquette University. During the election, Walker was accused of violating campaign guidelines on several occasions and eventually admitted to some wrongdoing. His actions cost him campaign privileges and led the Marquette Tribune to declare him "unfit for presidency," citing in particular the mudslinging material distributed by Walker and his campaign. Ebonacht (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's still mentioned, but I moved it to the section that deals with his education. Here is the first change and the explanation and here is a copy edit I did to further remove POV.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit creates a specific narrative that is biased. First, the added material about promising to fix the school's budget is not sourced and also a vast overstatement. The edits play into the PR-driven narrative of Walker as budget-hawk, but is not grounded in reality; the student government at a private university has little control over the overall budget. This campaign promise is also far more specific than the material you have removed about the election issues--mudslinging, the quote from the Journal on why they did not endorse him. Finally, you have stacked the clauses so that it suggests the lack of the paper's support led him to the loss--playing into a "conservative budget hawk versus the media narrative." This is speculation and the statements need to be separated as they were originally. Ebonacht (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We should accurately reflect what the sources say, in a neutral and unbiased manner regardless of our personal opinions of the subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The National Review article cited points back to the Marquette Tribune piece. The Tribune piece says nothing about Walker running on a platform of balancing the school's budget, which is not a surprise. Marquette is a private university and a student body president would have no real impact on its budget. This claim should not be repeated unless original source material can be cited. The Tribune article makes it clear that Walker was accused of campaign violations, was found guilty of some violations, and later admitted them. These are facts, not an opinion, and the Tribune piece points back to contemporary accounts that support these as facts. Ebonacht (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Linkedln

According to the Reliable Sources noticeboard [3][4] Linkedln is not considered a reliable source since it is user submitted content and there is not verification of its authenticity. Anyone could open an account for Scott Walker and write anything they wanted. If its valid, notable information it will be available in other sources. So we should find a better source or remove this sentence

• He worked for IBM in sales from 1988 to 1990, and in marketing and development at the Red Cross from 1990 to 1994, according to his LinkedIn profile.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to whichever editor has added a more reliable source to that text. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing misleading misquote

A misleading sentence has been placed at the beginning of the section that describes the bill budget repair bill for the fiscal year ending June 30 2011. It reads

Since 2003 (8 years before Walker became governor) “a series of tax cuts have been instated that cumulatively represent $3.7 billion.” These cuts total an additional “$800 million-per-year reduction in tax revenues.”

The parenthetical introduces a false narrative that there was a growing yearly deficit for many years before Walker became gov. This is enhanced by the misleading term "cumulatively". Deficits cannot grow - states have to balance their budgets. In addition, the quote itself is inaccurately rendered, and the part which is a paraphrase changes the meaning. However, the statement, no matter how it is phrased, is irrelevant. A cumulative loss of $3.7 B to the state treasury since 2003 is off topic to this section which is about a budget fix for one particular cycle - 2010-2011. Mentioning the 3.7 B amount can easily make the reader believe the tax cut in 2003 is the entire source of the projected budget shortfall for 2013. Maybe it's the source of 800 million, maybe it is not. What the NBC reporter was really saying is that if we apply the rate of 2002 at the end of 2013, the state could theoretically collect $800 million more in taxes in 2013. That of course, is a dubious idea, at best. More importantly, the statement is cherry-picked from a list of 5 things the author thinks are causing Wisconsin's budget problems. It is listed number 3 of 5 and is definitely not the most important factor listed. There is no reason to pick this one over the 4 others, but including all 5 is way beyond the scope of this article which is about Walker and his governorship. Therefore I am removing this misleading and misquoted statement. KeptSouth (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have issues with those two sentences. They appear to be out of context as they have more to do with state business than the life of the subject. Also the tax reductions over time are theoretical reductions and should not be in the article in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Scott Walker article - relevant discussion for the Scott Walker talk page, not my talk page

You have made several, sequential edits to the Scott Walker article that are variously; contrary to sourced material, factually incorrect or ungrammatical, and made without acknowledging discussion already on the talk page. You made these edits with zero edit summaries describing or justifying them.KeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• 1. You have reverted an edit that was correct and was based on sourced information contained in the article [5]. Though his father was a Baptist minister, he is now a member of a non-denomination evangelical church.KeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a citation, specifically National Public Radio, that has listed him as Baptist. I reverted to Baptist based upon that citation. The article that you cite is more recent and therefore it should be controlling.--Corbridge (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• 2. You incorrectly changed the name of the paper cited in the article, which was clearly the Milwaukee Journal at the time, a simple click on the cite would have shown you were factually incorrect before you made the change. Again, you left no edit summary.KeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of the merger/acquisition/whatever, but I was trying to give the reader a link to some information about the current newspaper, that is all.--Corbridge (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• 3. You revised a quote, so it is not a correct quote anymore. He said is part of the quote. diffKeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are quoting the newspaper, then the phrase "he said" is correct. However, if you actually quoting Walker then the phrase "he said" is incorrect. This is merely a difference in style.--Corbridge (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• 4 You omitted the terms "leaving" and earlier, "quitting" resulting in some confusion - he explained his reasons for what? for getting a C average or for not finishing? You have made this unclear. diff Your edit also introduces ambiguity and error about the grade itself, the number of credits remaining which was at least 36 as described in the source.[6]KeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I did remove the words because there are obviously editors who are want to place undue weight on his college record. For goodness sake, someone added information about his attempt to run for college class president, which has to be, without question, one of the most unimportant pieces of information that the world has ever seen. It is not necessary and it is not encyclopedic and it is there merely to damage him again. At least with the leaving school issue, an argument can be made that it was an integral, important decision in his life and therefore must be mentioned. But whether some childish election college election commission did or say this or that is NOT important. If there is anything there encyclopedic then it is the fact that he ran for office and lost. Period.--Corbridge (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• 5. You have made the sentence grammatically incorrect as well as unclear, with no expanation.diff. I am beginning to think that you wish to obfuscate or whitewash the simple fact that Gov. Walker quit college, but it is a simple fact, and as I discussed on the talk page, it is better to mention it straight out, using neutral terms such as "leave" and "quit" and to include his explanation than it is to obscure these facts.KeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The words "leave" and "quit" are not value neutral. If we have to comment on it then we should use the model that Wikipedians have found appropriate for former Democratic Vice President Al Gore in reference to Gore quitting/leaving Vandy Law. The Gore article states, "did not complete law school." As for Gore leaving/quitting Vandy Divine there is no mention of the fact that he utterly failed to complete the program. In contrast to this article about a Republican Governor, there are editors who have decided to outline the number of credits that Walker earned, how many he "at least" needed to earn to graduate, and unimportant information about some silly college election.--Corbridge (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't attack. You do not know that I am wishing "to obfuscate or whitewash" his college career. It is not your place. It is inappropriate and it violates good faith.--Corbridge (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to these points if you wish to continue reverting material or making the article less accurate or unclear. Also please see the discussion already on the talk page regarding the mention of his quitting college. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's get something very, very clear, your ultimatum wording above is inappropriate and incorrect. It is not for you to decide if I can continue to revert material. If there violations of Wikipedia rules then I will revert--especially in an article about a living person. You need to change your attitude. It is way too high and mighty.--Corbridge (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I made no comment that can reasonably be construed as an ultimatum. Your reversions and edits did not correct "violations of Wikipedia rules". They did not correct anything, but instead, these edits, and a few that you have subsequently done, introduced inaccuracies into a BLP, and have changed clear and sourced statements into text which is ambiguous, or simply not true. -Regards - KeptSouth (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Several days ago, I noticed numerous, sequential edits all made by the same user, and all made without edit summaries. I believed the edits to be variously counterfactual, unsourced, ungrammatical or phrased in a way which introduced new ambiguity to the article. I chose to discuss this on the users talk page. The other user chose to repost, retitle and refactor my comments onto this talkpage in a way that begins with an almost incomprehensible dialog regarding who is saying what. I have changed the section header to reflect the original one which, per WP:Talk page guidelines is "more descriptive of the content of the discussion". The discussion begins with part of my comment to Corbridge regarding his editing behavior. It appears to be a series of 7 comments by me, but I posted only one comment - which Corbridge interleaved his responses. KeptSouth (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the comments given by the above user, I would also like to raise the point about the paragraph that I had added yesterday to the aforementioned article concerning the prank call made to Governor Walker by Ian Murphy. Although I must agree that it is most probably biased, I argue that it should not be altogether removed, and instead should be replaced by a more neutral paragraph, possibly following the format of the one you had mentioned. Since the event seems to have redefined the situation at least slightly, and since it has been a deciding factor in the opinion polls about the governor, it seems fit that it should be mentioned, even if briefly. Also,I would like to say that certain things in the paragraph that may have seemed offensive, such as the reference to a baseball bat (in this case it was a direct quote) were based in facts and not opinions derived from carefully listening to the entire recording of the conversation available on the site that I referenced the paragraph to. Part of neutrality is presenting all of the facts of an event, however controversial, to the reader, so that they can use it as a credible source of information. I would also appreciate if you might mention exactly what it was you found wrong with the paragraph so that I might be able to improve it. In addition I am slightly concerned with the capability of any person to judge the neutrality of such a paragraph in a time less than ten minutes, as indicated on the editing history of the aforementioned article.--Jln Dlphk (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the paragraph to be more neutral (deleting words such as "trick" and making it clear that Murphy was impersonating Koch, and have also listened to your suggestion that my original source was not credible. I have used a credible source, the Washington Post, and also added references to the The Beast (the original source of the story; Murphy is its editor) and Fox News, which is my attempt to make it more fair to both sides of the debate by giving both of their arguments equal ground. Please, if you have any other problems, discuss them instead of reverting my edits every ten minutes (literally). Also, if you want the paragraph changed, change it yourself (I have no reëdited it several times in accordance with your complaints) or discuss so we can ensure that all factual information is presented, and presented neutrally.--Jln Dlphk (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on my talk page. You need to go to the Scott Walker talk page and explain yourself there. I will not engage with you here. Your edit was based upon a non-RS, it is full of POV, and it way too long (undue weight). Go edit properly and go to the talk page over there to discuss your edits not here.--Corbridge (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's my response, then. Having broken down your edits of my paragraph, I can see how you managed to get rid of it completely, once again, in a matter of minutes. First you removed the link to The Beast, thereby allowing you to deny all of the comments made by Walker as false because they weren't in the Washington Post article. Although The Beast would normally not be a reliable source, since the article in question is mostly a long exact quotation of the entire conversation, it is reliable (exact quotations are reliable no matter what source they come from). Also, in order to balance out the liberal bias of the Beast source, I put in a reference to Fox News, which is considered generally to have a conservative bias. Though this is not Wikipedia's policy, it was the only way I could justify (on the basis of neutrality) the necessary Beast reference. I noticed that at no time in your edits of the paragraph did you say that the Fox article was not a reliable source, which shows that you are promoting a conservative viewpoint (thus doing exactly what you have accused me of). By removing the transcripts, you then removed everything that wasn't in the Post article, and then used the lack of information to argue that it wasn't relevant at all, and deleted it all in a matter of a few minutes. Furthermore, it is not Wikipedia's policy to delete every uncited piece of information; rather, you should try to find a credible source yourself, or, if you cannot, put a citation needed notice near the text. If you want it to be more neutral, how about editing it yourself instead of deleting it every time you can find an excuse to? If your goal is properly present the events displayed in Wikipedia's articles, then you ought to devote as much time as you can to finding the correct information. Also, although you accuse me of not editing properly, I edited the paragraph three times before I posted it,and then an additional two times to comply with your requests.--Jln Dlphk (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Walker's Face in Crosshairs

I put a paragraph in here about union protesters putting Walker's face in crosshairs on a poster. It was pretty incediary, but it was all true and verified, I provided a link. Why was it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies?

Should there be a controversies section that talks about the current protest over his plan to get rid of the budget deficit? People would need to be careful to be unbiased. This may not fall under controversis; however, his telephone conversation with the person fronting as "Koch" is certainly very controversial--Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV, maybe we should try to incorporate them into the main article rather than devote a section to controversies. I definitely agree that the telephone conversation you mentioned should be in the article, especially since it has made headlines on many of the major news websites (wall street journal, new york times, cnn are ones I've seen), but we should be careful not to give it undue attention. --Snarfherder (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Snarf, better not to create a special section for controversies unless they become a major part of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that Scott Walker and the Wisconsin labour unrest have made news in Canada almost purely because of the telephone controversy. I would say that at this point it is Walker's greatest claim to fame outside Wisconsin. --Saforrest (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reporting: protests made news in Taipei. This page is far too nice - enough that it is disinformation - get some controversy in the main article, it is more than notable. 75.72.220.197 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The protests are included. We don't include controversy just to include controversy. Furthermore there is no need to fully repeat everything here that which is already in the protest article. On a side note I removed the lead-in into the protests. A source from before the sources regarding the budget was being used to set the stage for the protests. This is clearly original research. I also removed the specifics from the living person impersonation call. Due to the nature of how this call was made, Walker's statements are very likely to be taken out of context, and may not even have been legal (impersonating a living person for a personal gain). Not too mention he was being recorded without his knowledge. This follows the same pattern in the protest article. Arzel (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The legality of the call is not our concern. If there is missing context, then let's add the context. The call was widely reported, and seems like a notable addition to give the subject's views on the budget issue.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that the call cannot be reported, only that quoting Walker from that call should not. It is quite obvious due to the nature of the call that Murphy was baiting Walker, and his responses were not obtained under any guise of good faith. We have a higher standard for BLP issues, and we should stick with it. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What language in the WP:BLP policy do you believe is most applicable to this situation?   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the call may not have been legal; however, the words were said so I believe they should be reported on here. --Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Having tried myself to add a paragraph about the call, I must call for a compromise on the issue. Obviously it is extremely controversial, and may require sources that are usually unreliable (such as The Beast itself, as most of the reporting done on the subject by that paper is an exactly quoted text version of the recording of the aforementioned conversation, and as far as I know exact quotes are always considered reliable sources), because sources usually considered reliable may not include full transcripts of the recording. I suggest that people of all political opinions and positions on this issue collaborate to create a paragraph that reports this extremely controversial issue in a way that is not biased, or at least has as little bias as possible. One possible suggestion I have is to use a reference to a source as biased as The Beast, except for the opposite political view; though this is not standard Wikipedia practice, it may be the only way that The Beast (or any other site with a full transcription of the conversation, for that matter) can be justifiably cited as a source of the paragraph. However, it seems wrong to not include it all, as it has had a significant impact on the image of the governor during these times which are extremely hostile to his policies.--Jln Dlphk (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Protestors lack of civility

I've removed a long quotation claiming to attest to the lack of civility among protesters for the following reasons: (1)This provides undue weight to the behavior of protesters while adding nothing new or useful to this article. It might better belong in the article on 2011 budget protests. (2) The reference used to support this quote is from an opinion piece rather than a conventional news article; this is not appropriate for a BLP article.--Snarfherder (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. So: you removed the — real, documented — examples of lack of civility (including calls for the death of Republican law-makers and calls for war) from these demonstrations of (loud and in-your-face) people on the left. Just tell me this: did you also head over to the Tea Party movement article to remove the — entirely imagined and made-up — examples of hatred and racism and so on from the (relatively polite and well-mannered) demonstrators on the right? Oh, that's right, you answer that above: "It might better belong in the article on 2011 budget protests", which encompasses everybody (left and right), so that protesters on the left will not be singled out and held to account for their boorishness. (Ah, Wikipedia…) Asteriks (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the article on Walker, not on the protesters. If Walker had confronted the protesters personally, and if they were rude to him, then that would be relevant here. General issues related to the 2011 Wisconsin protests belong in that article.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Will. Asteriks, you appear to be implying other editors are hypocrites with your comparison, but a better comparison might be whether Barack Obama's Wikipedia article should include a long section on the behavior of Tea Party protesters; I think we'd agree it shouldn't. Just as the Tea Party protest article should include information on behavior of protesters, so should the WI protest article include this information--not necessarily the targets of both sets of protests. Khazar (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Marquette alumnus?

Would Scott Walker (Milwaukee County Executive, candidate for Governor, Republican) truly be considered a Marquette University alumnus? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that he attended, but did not graduate.

Re: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar02/30928.asp (He got the "essence of a Marquette education" in his 3 1/2 years there, Walker says.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Mathu (talk • contribs)

- i agree that scott walker cannot be considered an alumn of marquette university. i think this is an important note to be made on this page. --Maximilian77 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is an alumnus. An alumnus is anyone who used to attend a particular institution. Alumnus status is not contingent on graduation. --Rob Kennedy 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the American Heritage Dictionary disagrees with you. An alumnus is defined as "a graduate of a school, college, or university." Scott Walker did not graduate from Marquette University, and thus he is not an alumnus.--Snarfherder (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary on-line (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alumnus), an alumnus can be "a graduate or former student of a specific school, college, or university" or "a former associate, employee, member, or the like." Ynot4tony2 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The alumnus Wikipedia article states "An alumnus can also be a former member, employee, contributor or inmate as well as a former student" in the second sentence. So by those standards he is an alumnus, similar to how a college athlete who leaves early for the pros is usually considered an alumnus. –CWenger (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines it as "a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university". So that would seem to apply in this circumstance. Midlakewinter (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. See the biographies of Barack Obama (Occidental College), Al Gore (Vanderbilt Law and Vandy Divinity schools), and of course Bill Clinton (Oxford University). These schools are listed as alma maters but none of the politicians listed graduated from these schools. Being an alum only matter if you attended, not whether you graduated. Tell an alumni association to return all of the money from alumni that attended but did not graduate and see what kind of response you get.--Corbridge (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are credible sources with contradictory definitions (e.g., Princeton WordNet,) but I agree that Merriam-Webster definition seems to be the most authoritative. However, I think the fact that other politicians' biographies use the word in this way is largely irrelevant. If the word was indeed used incorrectly on this page, it would simply need to be changed on those as well.--Snarfherder (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that is simply not true. How the word is interpreted on other pages in Wikipedia is completely and totally relevant. I just provided three examples of folks that have alma maters listed from which they did not graduate. There are literally hundreds more throughout Wikipedia. All of these hundreds of pages provide solid evidence that there are hundreds of Wikipedia editors who have reviewed the proper use of the word alma mater and came to the same conclusion that alma mater means exactly what the vast majority of dictionaries state that it means, a school of higher education that one attended, but did not necessarily graduate from. You might find it "irrelevant" but common sense dictates that if the majority of dictionaries come to that conclusion--particularly the most famous and most used ones (Oxford and Webster) AND a great number of Wikipedia editors have reached that same conclusion during the development of hundreds of biographies then that seems to be very good evidence for the interpretation of mere attendance, not graduation. Also, in the article defining alma mater in Wikipedia itself the editors of that page decided to focus on the definition used by Oxford and Webster. Whereas your position is that we just simply ignore the input of hundreds of Wikipedia editors and we just ignore the vast majority of dictionaries for what reason I cannot tell from your comment. Your only suggestion is to just ignore the other editor's work, which is not consistent with the whole point of Wikipedia--a NPOV collaborative work. I cannot square your desire to just ignore their work with the underlying premise of Wikipedia. Your suggestion is in direct contradiction with what we are working toward.--Corbridge (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did I suggest that we should ignore *any* dictionary definitions. Quite the opposite, I was suggesting that we look at the confluence of evidence and base our decision on the most authoritative, definitive sources available because there exist contradictory, apparently valid sources (I provided two on this talk page). I believe that I agreed with the previous posters who made this same point regarding definitiveness, and contrary to your assertions, I *did* indeed agree that the Merriam-Webster definition was authoritative. Secondly, and most importantly, it is most surely irrelevant what convention other Wiki articles follow when it comes to asserting the truthfulness of a statement or definition. The goal of Wikipedia is not, as you suggest, to simply maintain an internally consistent encyclopedia. Rather, it's goal is to maintain a *verifiable,* open and accessible one. The point being, if a word is improperly defined and used in one article, it does not provide evidence to the contrary to merely state that it is used the same way in another article on Wikipedia (or even hundreds). It "correctness" needs to be verified, and Wikipedia itself can not be the primary source of this or any other information (and it is not meant to be.) If there are contradictory third-party sources (as in this case), the most reliable and authoritative sources should be used (which is, in fact, what has already been discussed and determined.) Please read WP:Sources if you are having trouble understanding these points. --Snarfherder (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course you have suggested to ignore the work of other editors. Other editors have reviewed the issue of what alma mater means and in those articles they have agreed with the Oxford and Webster dictionaries. This is a silly discussion. Marquette considers him to be an alum--just like Occidental College considers Obama to be an alum. Oxford considers Clinton to be an alum--just like Vandy considers Gore an alum. You just can't ignore the work of other Wikipedia editors just because you don't agree with their conclusions--conclusions that are based upon the definitions of the Oxford and Webster dictionaries.--Corbridge (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to ignore the work of other editors and it is inappropriate to assume that the hundreds of other bios that list college that individuals merely attending but did not graduate from is somehow incorrect. The assumption is incorrect and it violates good faith. You cannot ignore the work of other editors. For example, the editors of Harold Macmillan's article have listed Oxford University as his alma mater even though he did not graduate from there. He did attend for two years, but he was called away at the outbreak of the WWI and he chose not to return. However, later in his long, distinguished career he was appointed the Chancellor of Oxford University. Generally only alumnus of Oxford can be voted Chancellor. As you can see from this article in 2003 Oxford was considering naming Bill Clinton Chancellor even though he never graduated from Oxford: Bill Clinton heads Oxford's wishlist for new Chancellor. It was points out without a doubt that Oxford Univ. considers Clinton an alumnus even though you don't. I'm just considering the source. And as I have pointed out the Oxford dictionary and the Webster dictionary considers Clinton an alumnus of Oxford, just as it considers Walker an alum of MU.--Corbridge (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be very, very clear that we cannot ignore the work of other Wikipedia editors, such as the decision to list Oxford Univ. as one of Bill Clinton's alma maters, we should review just exactly what Oxford University has posted on its own website under the title "Famous Oxonians": A reference to Bill Clinton as a Famous Oxonian.--Corbridge (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that you are missing the point. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. You can not base an article on the information given in different article. All information must be *verifiable* using outside sources, and all information (definitions included) must come from those sources, not from other articles.--Snarfherder (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you clearly miss the point. Oxford dictionary states that alma mater is place where someone attended. Walker attended MU, therefore, he is an alum. Webster dictionary states that alma mater where someone attended. Walker attended MU, therefore, he is an alum. Now, there is precedent to treat alma mater this way by reviewing the way alma mater was treated in the Clinton, Gore, Macmillan, and Obama articles (and hundreds more). You just can't ignore the facts and the work of other editors. We have a process called consensus in Wikipedia and that consensus overwhelming has decided that alma mater is a college that one attended. Period. Do not violate consensus in this article and the consensus in hundreds of other articles unless you can come up with a better reason than you have provided so far. You have only provided on obscure source and your opinion and that is not, in anyway, enough to overturn the consensus in this article and hundreds of other articles in Wikipedia. You just can't ignore consensus and the millions of small decision made in the thousands of articles in Wikipedia creates consensus. Stop trying to make the argument that the work and opinions of other editors can be ignored. It violates good faith and it violates consensus.--Corbridge (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)I have long ago agreed that the Merriam-Webster definition was authoritative. (2) Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. All information must be *verifiable* using outside sources, and all information (definitions included) must come from those sources, not from other articles. WP:Sources. (3) By your own logic, Princeton WordNet and The American Heritage Dictionary, whose definitions disagree with the above use of the word, should take precedence by the very fact that they have Wikipedia articles.--Snarfherder (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments above are redundant and they do not address the fact that I have been making. You cannot ignore the work of other editors it violates consensus. The work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors throughout hundreds of biographies in Wikipedia have come the conclusion that alma mater is a college that one attended but did not necessarily graduate from. This is the consensus and we cannot just ignore consensus because we do not agree with it.--Corbridge (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This argument has been more than done with since the minute you started talking. You have no valid points that I haven't addressed several times, and you keep coming back to the same fallacious point that somehow a Wiki article can be used as a source of information for another Wiki article. It simply is not so. Please stop abusing this talk page.--Snarfherder (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot ignore consensus just because you don't like what the consensus is.--Corbridge (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not even the case that I did disagree with the consensus reached on this topic. My point is that consensus does not provide verification. At no point does the consensus on a Wiki article mean that the article can be used as a primary source for another article, which is exactly what you are suggesting we do.--Snarfherder (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I agree that Merriam-Webster definition seems to be the most authoritative.":

Nonsense. Merriam-Webster's official and clearly stated policy since its Third International published in the sixties is to include any definition that fits any usage found anywhere in print. In otherwords, it allows, at least in theory, any word to be used any which way. It is officially not "prescriptive", that is, it doesn't say how a word should be used; it is only "descriptive", that is, even it merely tells ways a word has been used, including how it has been used by the illiterate. 68.113.148.18 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Although dictionary makers often see their work as purely descriptive, their dictionaries are widely used as prescriptive authorities by the community at large" see article--Snarfherder (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify the cases of Harold Macmillan and Bill Clinton at Oxford: at Oxford matriculation is the key event for an official lifelong status at the university. This ceremony is at the very beginning of a student's time there. I think that in an entirely unofficial way this reflects that it's more difficult to be admitted to Oxford than to graduate from it.

Alumnus means 'foster son', ie someone who is reared at an institution. It implies getting an education rather than a qualification; though you could also argue that graduation is a proof of the education. If someone were a very short time in statu pupillari I think it would be misleading even if technically correct to describe him as an alumnus, but in this case he was there four years apparently. Spicemix (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

End of Marquette attendance

One of the protest signs states that he was asked to leave because of cheating. If that is true, that probably should be on the page. That would be consistent with his not obtaining a degree.Affenbart (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow the addition of unreliably sourced comments about living people. The poster of a union thug is not a reliable source. I will provide you an opportunity to provide a reliable source for your damaging material and if you cannot provide one then this comment will be removed.--Corbridge (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it would be more appropriate to leave Affenbart's comment as it stands. If no evidence is found, it would serve as a record for future users that this position has been discussed and found untenable. If credible evidence is found, it should be added to the Wikipedia page and properly cited.--Snarfherder (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Union thug"?...No bias there.... PurpleChez (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no legitimate sources supporting this.--Snarfherder (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Walker's Motorcycle ride

I'm not sure why the following has been included in the article?

"The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has asked the state's Government Accountability Board for an official opinion on the legality of Scott Walker, as Milwaukee's County Executive, using taxpayer money to pay for the executive's motorcycle ride around Wisconsin. The issue at hand is whether the rides are violating state law - that bars the use of public resources for campaigning."

This should be stricken from the article on the basis of irrelevance and bad precedent. First: unless is has been demonstrated that Walker's motorcycle ride is against state law, the only reason to include this paragraph is to imply that Scott Walker has engaged in something illegal. Second: if it has become good practice to include the criticisms of opposing political parties on Wikipedia, then a Pandora's box will be opened regarding any unsubstantiated criticisms of officials by their political opponents. Third, there have been no substantiated news reports, that I'm aware of, that Walker has used the motorcycle tour for campaigning purposes. His entourage have been prohibited from promoting the campaign or from displaying any campaign propaganda. And fourth, the Democrat Party of Wisconsin made an inquiry, not an accusation. Inquiries are just that, inquires.

Walker "tax cuts" for billionaires

Why is there not any coverage of the real REASON that WI faces a budget deficit, Walker's series of tax cuts to his big donors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSEVWatch (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be editorializing, as well as ignoring the fact that he has only been Governor for barely over two months. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this is an encyclopedic article on the life of a man, not a political article on state politics.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Two months does not mean he did not sponsor and see passed a large tax cut followed days later by a budget repair bill for the purpose of shoring up a hold in the budget enlarged by his own tax cut. If the spending cuts of his budget repair bill is mentioned, then his tax cuts the month before must be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.145.48 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"For the purpose of..."? Did Walker say he passed the budget repair bill in response to his tax cuts? No. So, what's your "reliable source" that says the budget repair bill was a direct result of Walker's tax cuts? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV?

From the article:

On March 8th, private emails were released showing Walker negotiated with the Democratic legislators for weeks, even allowing some collective bargaining rights.^[56][57] Unfortunately, Democratic legislators refused to come back to Wisconsin to vote on the compromise. Walker then took out fiscal measures in the bill so that a quorum is no longer needed and pass the bill and the Democratic legislators were not needed.^[58][59] By not compromising with Scott Walker, Wisconsin public employees lost out on restoring collective-bargaining rights regarding workplace safety, classroom size, and mandatory overtime and to allow salaries to rise at the rate of inflation.^[60][61]

It seems to me that blaming the other side for the first side legislation, is a bit unbalanced. – Fuzzy – 14:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's an atrocious violation of the NPOV policy and a completely one-sided read of the cited articles. There is not a single mention in this entire article about Walker's conversation with the man he thought was David H. Koch, in which he candidly stated, "I'm not negotiating,"[7] in a reference to Democratic legislators. The event is by far one of the most notable in his career, and it needs to be addressed in this article. --Shock the Black (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

2/3 of business don't pay taxes

There was a statement refereced to HuffPo that said that 2/3 of buisness' don't pay taxes. I have been unable to find the supposed source for their statement. I did however find this 2006 article which says in 2003 (latest year available at the time) 2/3 did not pay taxes, however at that time many business' had subsidaries which all file their own taxes and many business' set up their taxes so that just one of the business pay taxes, which may explain the number. This statement is bandied about the internet by many left-leaning sources, yet I don't see anything from 2011 that can be verified. Furthermore, the inplication from the statement is that this is somehow a result or cause of the current situation, which according to the information available this has been happening for sometime. I don't see the relevance to the current situation other than to make a political talking point against Walker. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Just because you found some data from 2006 doesn't mean that's the data they used. Gamaliel (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What I am asking for is a better source that made this claim. I have been unable to find it, and I don't think it is unreasonable to make sure that facts like these are well referenced. Arzel (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source that talks about this explaining that this is a consequence of wisconsin tax laws, and this has been in place for many years. It has nothing to do with Scott Walker, and is nothing more than a political talking point. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This source doesn't mention Walker and predates his term in office, so it's original research to connect the two. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bull. As stated the implication is that this is a result of the 2011 budget issue. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to imply that this is something new. It is certainly not OR since it does not make a new connection. This was the same exact issue in 2003 (reported in 2006). I suppose we could remove the entire aspect as being completely unrelated to the budgest issue if you would like. Arzel (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can just remove it. According to Politifact this is a common occurance, is not new (the 2011 report is from 2007 data) and the results in Wisconsin mirror those at the federal level. I am removing it as undue weight and out of date information based on the Politifact report. Politifact also states that it is a political talking point of Liberal Advocacy group One Wisconsin Now. Arzel (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is arguably WP:SYNTH. But perhaps the bigger issue is it is just out of place. The whole part about corporate taxes interrupts the flow of the section and there is no explanation given for how it is connected to the budget bill. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced statement of long standing removed

The question here is simply whether an uncited, inaccurate statement should be removed from the article. The statement refers to Walker's political career after his 1990 bid for a seat in the General Assembly: "This race remains the only political campaign for elected office that Walker has lost to date." It was last added to the page with a hidden comment added to the body of the article giving the reason: "This last sentence is true and is confirmed by this page. It is not OR or SYNTHESIS, just a fact. Would whoever keeps removing it please explain on the talk page why".[8]

The hidden comment has since been removed, and a cite needed tag added, however, I have posted it the comment here because it the gives the rationale for why the writer believes the statement should be in the article without any citation to a reliable source. And, of course, the explanation itself shows that the statement about never losing another campaign is self-referential, original research. The fact remains that it is uncited material in a BLP, and therefore, should not be in Walker's WP bio according to WP:BLP policy. Personally, I have looked in vain for a reliable source that makes this statement, and I am sure others have too because this article has been extensively edited by numerous individuals, yet no source has been added during the many appearances of the statement that began in March 2011.

Finally, the statement that Walker has not lost a political campaign since 1990 is not actually not true as Scott lost state Republican convention straw polls whose voters were state politicos, in 2006 which caused him to abort his 14-month-long campaign for governor (2005-2006). Because the statement about never losing since 1990 is such a clear case of unsourced, inaccurate original, and because I have provided convincing support here for removing it, I am now removing the statement. Hopefully this will not be disputed—frankly I cannot conceive of a good faith argument for keeping it, unless of course, a reliable source is found 11:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I am not going to dispute this. I believe the statement is accurate, however it is not all-important. I am grateful that User:KeptSouth "looked in vain for a reliable source that makes this statement", rather than just deleting it. I also would not hold that "convention straw polls" count as competitive election races, which is what I clearly meant. Otherwise the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the trouble with original research - it's susceptible to many meanings, and plain terms can mean whatever one wants them to mean. Thank you for your comment in closing this issue. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome, but I dispute that Walker not having lost a competitive race for elected office since 1990 is OR. At worst, it is a fact whose style of wording has not yet been replicated by the talking heads/punditry. You should have closed this out more graciously. As far as Marquette goes, in which I have no interest, that was: a) before 1990 and b) not a political race. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You say you are not disputing the change, then you say in your very next post that you are disputing it. You speculate I have removed material simply because it did not have a cite needed tag, but I gave 3 reasons in my edit summary-more than enough justification-for boldly removing the sentence. Upon your restoration of it I did not do the bold edit again, but rather added a cite needed tag, gave you notice on your talk page, and started discussion on the article talk page, alerting you to my intent to remove the material unless someone found an appropriate reliably sourced citation. My actions were all straighforward and policy compliant.

Now, it seems that without foundation, you are claiming I did not do a "gracious" close. I believe that means you are claiming I have been rude here. I don't see any signs of that, in fact I see where I have said thank you one or two times here and you have also.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"You say you are not disputing the change, then you say in your very next post that you are disputing it." -- just to clarify -- I am not contesting the deletion of the text in question; I do object to its characterization as OR, when in fact it is as far as I am concerned, an empirical fact. I just wanted to make that clear as my comment was apparently misunderstood as an illogical dichotomy. No need to respond. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the material was correctly removed, and you are in agreement with the removal, the fact that one of many reasons given for its removal may be disputable shouldn't matter, imo. But because it somehow does matter to you, I will say here that the material removed squarely fits within the Wikipedia definition of original research: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material".seeWP:OR I agree that is not the common sense definition of "original research", but it is definitely Wikipedia's definition.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway didn't he run for student body president of Marquette and lose? –CWenger (^ • @) 16:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there was sourced information about college grades and the fact that he lost an election for Marquette student body president to a write in candidate after he was cited for campaign violations. There are also inconsistencies in the reasons he has given for leaving college. At one point, he implied he left because he had a family to support, though he was not yet married. Some, but not all of this, imo, should be back in the article. It was in there a while ago, but seems to have disappeared, with no discussion on here on the talk page apparently.KeptSouth (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Walker's Salary (as a public servant) should be clearly stated.

Walker's Salary (as he is a public servant) should be clearly stated (visible) on his wiki page, especially given the nature of his campaign and key points of "budget correction". Thank you.

"This page describes the compensation, salaries, and benefits that Wisconsin's public employees receive from state and local government. The Journal Sentinel has made public employee salary information available. The salary of Wisconsin's governor ranks 19th among U.S. governors' salaries. The average salary earned by U.S. governors is $128,735. The median salary earned by U.S. governors is $129,962. In 2010, the state lost 2,600 public employee jobs.[1]"

[edit]Elected Officials' Salaries

State Government Employee Salaries Office 2010 Salary Current Official Governor $137,092 Scott Walker Lieutenant Governor $72,394 Rebecca Kleefisch Secretary of State $65,079 Douglas La Follete Attorney General $133,033 John Van Hollen Treasurer $65,079 Kurt Schuller

excerpt from : http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Wisconsin_state_government_salary

updated 8/18/2011: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/wb/10wb9.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronimagine (talk • contribs) 2011-05-07 01:36:07

Much as I despise the man, his exact salary is not encyclopedic content unless it has become the subject of notable discussion among impartial sources; and I see no evidence of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Orange Mike: Your opinions of Scott Walker are not in question, nor are they relevant to this discussion. Scott Walker is a public official making his salary open to public knowledge. Reading this wiki-page, one can see that his wages are mentioned several times (in reference to how much he gave back to the state early in his career). To be fair, it should also be stated what he is currently earning.

Here are a few excerpts from Scott Walker’s wiki-page: “Walker won the office on a platform of fiscal conservatism, promising, among other things, to give back part of his own salary, and criticizing the salaries of other county workers as excessive.[23] He said his voluntary give-back gave him the moral authority to make cuts in the county budget.[23] He continued returning $60,000 annually (slightly less than half of his salary), for several years, but by 2008, he cut his give-back to $10,000 per year.[23] During his eight years in office, he engaged in disputes with the county board "over taxes, privatization of public services, quality of parks and public buildings, and delivery of social services," according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.[14] He never submitted a budget with a higher property tax levy than the county board had approved over his veto the prior year.[15] He cut the number of county employees by more than 20 percent, and reduced the county's debt by ten percent.”

“As part of his campaign platform, Walker said he would create 250,000 jobs in his first term through a program that would include tax reforms[15] such as rolling back the 2009 state tax increases on small businesses, capital gains, and income for top earners, and cutting state employee wages and benefits to help pay for the tax cuts.”— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.29.46 (talk • contribs) 2011-08-21 01:16:31

Agree with Orange. Not encyclopedic. Even if we were to include salary it would quickly become bloated and WP:UNDUE, as we listed the various changes over the years. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Maine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.29.46 (talk • contribs) 2011-10-11 02:18:10

Please sign your messages

Agree with Orangemike. Then the articles about specific governors need improvement, by removing the salary, and the article about governors in genaral needs some editing. - Nabla (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

resource

The Walker Regime Pushes for Controversial Mining Law by Rebecca Kemble, October 26, 2011 in The Progressive. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Recall of Wisconsin Governor, resource WSJ and USA Today

• Democrats to Seek Recall of Wisconsin Governor OCTOBER 11, 2011, 5:29 P.M. ET by By Amy Merrick in the Wall Street Journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is more ... Nov 14, 2011 Democrats to launch recall of Wis. Gov. Scott Walker by Catalina Camia in USA Today. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Occupy Wisconsin; As the recall effort against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker goes into full swing, the Governor isn't backing down. November 18, 2011, 12:20 P.M. ET Wall Street Journal by Collin Levy 99.56.120.136 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Marquette, Student Government, GPA

This section of the article seems underdeveloped, and I don't know why it needs to be. Real citations exist for this informations, and yet it is not in the article. Walker dropped out of Marquette with a 2.59 GPA. Walker attended Marquette from 1986 to 1990, but never attained a degree. His sophomore year, Walker ran for president of the Associated Students of Marquette University (ASMU, the former title for Marquette Student Government). He was accused of violating campaign guidelines on multiple occasions. [[9]] This is widely reported and discussed, why can't it be mentioned in this article? i.e. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/19/nation/la-na-wisconsin-governor-20110220

That he left Marquette after 4 years without graduating is mentioned in the early life section. Arzel (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Eagle Scout

I have removed the statement that Walker was an Eagle Scout. This statement was supported by reference to two newspaper articles, each of which mentioned Walker being an Eagle Scout only in passing, without citing a source. The source could well have been (and probably was) Walker's official biography, so these references hardly count as two independent, objective sources. I originally changed the sentence to say that "Walker claims to have been an Eagle Scout," but this has a pejorative ring to it that another editor objected to. The only option that I can see is to remove the sentence until it can be verified. Walker himself recently has referred to his scouting career as evidence of his honesty. This makes it important that the eagle scout claim be verified (as it easily could be) by a clearly independent source. The current references do not qualify as such. Struvite (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Much as I despise and deplore the guy, in the course of circulating recall petitions against him I encountered a man whose told me his father had been Walker's scoutmaster when Walker earned his Eagle; admittedly not a reliable source, but interesting. (He didn't sign my petition.) Seems to me that this kind of claim, if false, would long since have been refuted by one of Walker's many foes and contemners. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not second guess reliable sources like that. No newspaper lists the sources for all of their facts. and because something _could_ be unreliable does not mean that it should be. Once the basic standard of RS is met, it is up to someone else to prove that is wrong, not double-prove it somehow. Practically every fact in the entirety of wikipedia could be deleted under the standard you are using. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

potential resource

Saw this on Talk:Tea Party movement#Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole ...

Michigan City Turns Down Millions of Dollars, Saying Federal Money Is Not Free by John Schwartz published December 22, 2011, example excerpt ...

Other Republican officeholders have said “Thanks, but no thanks” to federal money for high-speed rail: Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin rejected an $810 million federal grant to extend passenger rail from Milwaukee to Madison; Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey killed a project to dig a new commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River. But those actions have generally involved criticism of the underlying logic of the projects, or projections of enormous costs to be borne down the line by state and local governments. The Troy transit center’s construction, by comparison, required no local contribution, and its predicted annual maintenance cost of $31,000 was, in the context of the city’s $50 million budget, “de minimis,” said Mark Miller, the assistant city manager.

99.181.153.29 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course you did, You put it there. Your IP jumpings and random resource statements like this are quite annoying. Arzel (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

statement about poll numbers (under "Possible Recall") is flat-out wrong, as shown by source cited

Under "Possible Recall," it says something about the poll numbers throughout the year remaining steady. In fact, the second of the two sources cited says this:

"He hit his lowest point in PPP's polling in May at 43/54. By August he'd improved to 45/53"

Note how different that is from the statement about polls in the WP article.

Please correct this blatant inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.9.50 (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say those numbers are close enough to each other to be considered "steady". The difference is likely within the margin of error. However, if you wish to include the more detailed information and remove the minor analysis, I would be fine with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing the rules in WI for recalls after the recall was OK'd against Walker

[10] WI GOP are trying to change the recall rules after Walker's recall election was approved. 24.156.216.144 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, they are trying to change the rules, but that would not apply to the recalls already in progress, just future ones. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Criminal investigation

Why is there no mention here of the currently active criminal investigation of the Walker Administration?[11] Leaving this out of the article would be akin to an article about Warren G. Harding that excludes all mention of the Teapot Dome scandal. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

...which would not appear to prevent it from being added, since it says in its entirety: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime before a conviction is secured." (emphasis added) Rostz (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that given how famous he's become, he is not "relatively unknown". In fact, I'd consider him a rising star in the Republican Party, and someone who's definitely gaining more and more nationwide attention. So saying that he's under investigation is both (a) totally appropriate and (b) a responsible thing to do.

Because he is a Conservative. If he was a liberal, Wikipedia would be all over it. If you want news, go to an *actual* encyclopedia like Britannica and stop wasting your time on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.82.35 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof the investigation is actually about Walker personally. There is lots of speculation, but the investigation itself is secret. Until official details are released about who the actual target of the investigation is, then everything else is rumor and would be inappropriate for inclusion. Certainly if he is indicted as the rumors are suggesting, then that would be relevant to the article. (If someone else is the target, then it would likely depend on who the target was, and what the actual accusation was if it was relevant or not for this article) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If and when Walker is indicted then will be the time to mention it. We don't (and aren't supposed to) add speculation. Quis separabit? 18:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

recall trim/rewrite

The recall section needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. It is full of outdated information. I don't think this section needs to be a blow by blow account of everything that happened during the recall, as that can be covered in much more detail in the spinoff article. I think we should summarize the past parts very briefly , but cut out most of the "as of 2011", and other intermediate state information and just talk about the current state of the recall - Something along the lines of

After the contentious collective bargaining dispute, Walker's disapproval ratings have varied between 50% and 51% while his approval ratings have varied between 47% and 49% in 2011. Wisconsin law makes Walker eligible for recall beginning January 3, 2012, and the Wisconsin Democratic Party called it a "priority" to remove him from office.

In addition to the effort to recall the Governor, Democrats led recall elections to remove six Republican state senators, and unseated two. Republicans led recall efforts against three Democratic state senators, all of which were unsuccessful. As Democrats needed a three seat swing to gain control of the senate, but only gained two, Republicans retained control of the Senate.

[ed question : is the 5.2 number below inclusive of the 2.5 or additional? adjust wording appropriately]

In the first half of 2011, Walker raised more than $2,500,000 from supporters.[76][77] Walker raised $5.1 million in the second half of 2011 to battle his recall, "about half of it from out of state, illustrating the national significance both political parties saw in the recall fight." The effort to recall Walker officially began on November 15, 2011.[79] In less than half the allotted time (60 days) to collect signatures, recall organizers reported collecting more than 500,000 signatures, leaving roughly one month left to collect the remaining 40,000 signatures needed to force a recall vote.

On January 17, 2012, United Wisconsin, the coalition that spearheaded the recall effort along with the Democratic Party, said that one million signatures were collected, which far exceeds the 540,208 needed, and amounts to 23 percent of the state's eligible voters, 46 percent of the total votes cast in the 2010 gubernatorial election, and just shy of the 1.1 million votes earned by Walker.[81][82]

On January 25, 2012, a poll released by the Marquette University Law School showed Walker leading potential candidates Tom Barrett, Kathleen Falk, David Obey, or Tim Cullen.[83][84] A previous poll released by Public Policy Polling in October 2011 also showed Walker winning against Barrett, Falk, Peter Barca, Steve Kagen, or Ron Kind.[85]

In February Walker's campaign requested again to allow more time for the petition signatures to be verified, claiming about 20% of the signatures were not valid. Democrats argued that even if 20% of the signatures were not counted they still had 300,000 more than the required number needed to initiate the recall. Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski argued Walker is just "delaying the Inevitable". Furthermore, by not being in a recall election, Walker is able to collect unlimited monies from out-of-state donors.[86] On February 17, 2012, Dane County judge Richard Niess denied Governor Walker's request for additional time.

On March 30 2012, the Government Accountability Board unanimously ruled in favor of the recall election. The recall election for both Walker and Kleefisch will take place on June 5, 2012.[87]

Add information about primary results, who won, and perhaps overall republican turnout compared to democratic turnout (This gives parity with the comparison above of the recall turnout compared to votes for walker). Possibly mention cross-party voting speculation. possibly include most updated poll numbers for walker vs barrett

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be streamlined and updated. For example, the fundraising section is outdated. Walker has raised over $13 million this year, shattering previous fund-raising records. According to the Associated Press, Walker's money comes from "a who's who of some of the richest people in America"; the AP article emphasizes Walker's national appeal among conservatives and the importance of out-of-state money in his campaign ([12]). The unprecedented amount of $$$$ involved in this race should probably be mentioned briefly with more up-to-date references. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless I see objection, I will make my proposed edits above, for the reduction of information at least. I may or may not work on adding in the post-primary information, if inspiration strikes me :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Broadly oppose these specific changes as construed, though support paring some unnecessary detail and updating outdated information. Specifically, oppose removing mention of Walker's approval numbers and the amount of money he's raised for the recall. The total amount of money raised should be mentioned and it should include the amount raised through 2012, which is around $25 million.[13] Are the state senator recalls you refer to from 2011? Either way, this is peripheral to Walker, belongs elsewhere. Also support retaining some sort of polling data (more recent preferably) as well as information on the petitions. This section mostly needs to be updated, not "streamlined" by reducing information. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 20:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also wondering if the whole '2012 recall election' shouldn't be moved up to the '2012 recall campaign' subsection under 'Campaigns for Governor'. These sections would seem to be about the same thing, but one just says 'Walker is due to face a recall election on June 5, 2012' and links to the recall article. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 20:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I kept in the $ raised, I was just saying we don't need to break it down into how much was earned in different chunks of time - that additional level of detail s not needed in this summary section. I am also fine with updating that to include the more updated $$$ numbers. The senate elections information was already in there (and is in the live article now). I had originally just struck it out, but since there is a larger "recall" issue going on, I reconsidered and thought it could be informative, but needed to be balanced with all the recall info - I am fine with that paragraph going away though. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am def ok with the 12-13 million number, as there are several sources for that, but the $25 number is only found in that one article, and is contradicted by itself later down mentioning 13 million. Im not firmly objecting to the information ever, but I don't think it should be included unless we can sort out the discrepancy of why that number is almost 2x what is reported elsewhere (including in the same article). In the meantime, I am going to be bold and make what I think are the less controversial edits. If you do feel the need to revert, please do it selectively so we can focus on the parts that need to build consensus and not just revert everythingGaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

would support moving section to campaigns for governor btw. In fact.  Done Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The 13 million is just the 2012 amount. NYT says he pulled in that amount from mid-January to April 23. Journal Sentinel says it was 13.2M for three months. Besides, the reference you're using for the 13 million doesn't even mention that number because it's from December... Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. With those sources, Im ok with the 25+ number, but still think breaking it down into different periods of time is overkill. There is the quote originally stating "over half from out of state showing national..." etc. The quote is now somewhat inaccurate/synth since it was made prior to most of this money being raised, and therefore looks as though it is discussion something it is actually not. I am open to suggestions on how to reduce the synth/mis-direction issue. perhaps we can unquote the "raised from out of state" portion, and just include that in the narrative since we have seperate sourcing for that, and leave a shortened quote saying something about "[money raised] shows national importance" etc. ? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if it wouldn't make much of difference whether to mention the yearly/quarterly breakdowns of raised money, except that they are unprecedented for a Wisconsin race (both the total and the quarterly amount). I'm impartial as long as the total is correct. The 'out of state' money seems to have been something of an issue in news articles I've read, but I agree that it should be up to date. It wouldn't make sense to say what percentage of the 2011 money was out of state alongside the 2011/2012 total. I'll see if I can find a reference for the out of state total/percentage. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Poll

The content that was removed took out polling data from October and January. I agree that these would be better listed at the article for the campaign itself, but would also like to see one mention of (a more current) poll retained. There's a Marquette Law School poll from March 22-25 that had Barrett at 45 and Walker at 47 with a margin of error of +/- 3.8%. Not sure if there's anything more recent. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The polling data was talking about the whole range of dem candidates which is now no longer relevant/helpful, so I thought it was better left out. There are several relevant polls out. Unsure how we should decide what to include. I think the recall article could use a table or something to show the various polls. For this article, I think we should stick to just saying its a close race or something since the numbers are generally within the margin of error? Most sources are referring to the Marquette results as "dead heat" etc.

• http://weaskamerica.com/2012/05/14/recall-fever/ has walker at 52 barret at 48 +/- 2.8.
• rasmusen has walker at 50, barrett at 45 +/- 4.5 www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/wisconsin/rasmussen-poll-walker-leads-barrett
• a different rasmussen poll (I don't know which is newer) has walker at 52 http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/105855543.html
• summary of several polls (including the ones we just discussed) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/governor/wi/wisconsin_governor_recall_election_walker_vs_barrett-3056.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably not usable in the article (now, or likely ever, although a few people/blogs/sites have commented on it). Intrade has Walker at 75%, and has historically been as accurate as most polls, and more accurate than most pundits. http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=759686 Gaijin42 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Updated marquete polling numbers from may 9-12, Walker 50. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/151744125.html#!page=2&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst https://law.marquette.edu/poll/ Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that 38% of union households voted for Walker. Quis separabit? 15:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Main Photo

I've never seen this done to any politicians page when a file photo available to the public is used. Is there any reason for this other than a contentious election is coming up? I mean, honestly, it seems a bit suspect. --Theregistrorator 23:00, 7 May 2012 EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theregistorator (talk • contribs)

I found a good official campaign photo with fair use permissions from the owner, uploaded to infobox.

Here are the permissions:

Patriot1010 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research Study

Act 10, which curbed collective bargaining for most unionized public employees, in the whole has saved taxpayers more than $1 billion, according to The Economic Impacts of the Wisconsin Budget Repair Act. The study is slated for release this week by Beacon Hill Institute, a prominent free market think tank.

What the analysis found is that without the law, which in part requires covered public employees to contribute more to their benefits and holds wage increases to the rate of inflation, Badger State governments would have been forced to raise taxes or make deep job cuts to meet budget expenses[14]. AJCohn (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So? See our rules about reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying the Beacon Hill Institute study doesnt qualify as a RS? AJCohn (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the Beacon Hill Institute is libertarian and makes no bones about it, its analysis can certainly be suspected of bias. JHobson2 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The question should be, is the Wisconsin Reporter a legitimate "newspaper". If it is, we the material is sufficiently reliable for inclusion, although whether it should be reported as "according to the Beacon Hill Institute" may require more research. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Recalled Politicians category

Even though the recall failed, he was still subject to a recall and therefore should be added to that category. (For example, both Andrew Johnson and William Clinton were impeached, even though both were acquitted.) Dkendr (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Clinton was impeached, he wasn't acquitted from the impeachment. The senate did not find him guilty for the trial of the impeachment. Arzel (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached and acquitted, AS I SAID. Perhaps your reading comprehension is weak? At any rate, both were impeached even though neither was convicted; Walker was recalled even though he was not removed from office. Exactly the same thing. Dkendr (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

NO. ‎The category is not appropriate for Walker. Walker was never recalled -- the petitions triggered a recall VOTE, which he won handily; had he lost he would have been recalled. That's not to say that that is the way it is in all states or on the federal level. Quis separabit? 19:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ALSO: Dkendr: "Perhaps your reading comprehension is weak?" is unacceptable in both wording and tone. We are supposed to assume good faith here, and nothing Arzel has argued merits less than good faith or has breached protocol. Quis separabit? 20:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is somewhat pedantic. There are clear differences between say impeachment or indictment, vs the recall vote - where the former are official states that occur "was impeached, but not convicted, was indicted, but not convicted" etc. I am in agreement that Walker was not recalled - but that the petition to trigger a recall vote was sucessful - being recalled would have actually happened had he lost the election. However, I do fully acknowledge that for the purposes of wikipedia categorization, this is probably splitting hairs. For true accuracy, we would need several categories

• People subject to recall efforts (Anyone that had petitions/movements against them?)
• People subject to a recall election
• People who have been recalled

But I think that this level of accuracy is probably stupid for the purpose of wikipedia (but maybe not - I would not oppose this level of categorization if someone wants to do it.). Perhaps we should rename the current "Recalled" category to be somewhat closer to "People who have been subject to a recall election" which clearly includes walker as well as those who were successfully recalled. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be clearer. It is undeniable that Walker was not recalled (although some people outside the Wisconsin media markets don't realize that it was because his out-of-state owners bought the election); so the "Recalled" category, as currently written, would not apply. We don't currently have a category for "People who were subjected to a recall election, but were not recalled": in part because nobody has ever compiled such a list (that I'm aware of). As far as the first category: in any state with a recall mechanism, it's easy to say, "Oh, we're gonna do a recall on So-and-So": but it may be a farce (like the drive against Lena Taylor which collected a total of two signature, at last report); so the utility of such a category would be dubious. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have proof about the election being bought or are you just trying to stir up trouble? How about the hypocritical fact that the recall was based off the collective bargaining, but wasn't mentioned by the union bought supporters during the election. Maybe, just maybe the great people of Wisconsin see that Walker is doing a great job (which is what the polls says) and are tired of the public sector.... Arzel (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy. The recall had the proper and correct resolution, except for losing that one State Senate seat, so don't let yourself get riled over hyperbole by those who are still galled over the failure to recall Walker and blame it on boogeymen billionaires, like the Koch brothers. Take it like water off the proverbial duck's back, and move on.I would score out the above comment if I were you.Take this advice from someone a lot older than you. Quis separabit? 14:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are risking your own comment being turned back on yourself. There is a wide range of politics/opinions in this thread. Everyone can keep it profesional. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

All in that current category have been actually recalled, so the current category is sufficient for actually recalled politicians. Those subject to recall efforts sounds like a waste of time, especially these days where people want to do a recall at the drop of a hat, and I would say the same is true of those subject to a recall election. At least with actually recalled people, there was an action which is well defined and easily determined. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the first category is problematic, although it could be overcome by putting a 25% of needed petitions etc restriction on the category (But Im fine this category goes nowhere, it is not super helpful. I was just being a completionist in listing that hypothetical category). Re Arzel's objection to category #2, I think that is clear that those people would be easy to distinguish. Either an actual vote/trial/process took place, or it didn't - lack of success of that process does not mean it did not happen. Risking WP:FORUM but responding to OrangeMike's comment : "bought" is certainly not proven, especially when you count all of the money spent by the anti-walker crowd. The fact that dems wasted a bunch of money squabling amongtst themselves is not Walker's fault. And to expect him to not fundraise while millions were spent advertising for the petitions is ludicrous. Also don't forget the $20M or so spent by the unions - which by the way was only possible thanks to Citizens United, whereas despite the rhetoric, Walker's million dollar donations would have been legal even without CU. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Gaijin42 in his above analysis, and respect and support his admonition regarding professionalism and neutral language, even on talk pages where people (including me) have been known to lose their temper. Quis separabit? 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Scott Walker (Politician)

The page's tone is not one of neutrality. The wording of the tome appears to have what should be listed as 'criticism' interwoven into all areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smace05 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's how it should be done; a separate "criticism" (or "praise") section is considered bad form in a Wikipedia article, and should be eliminated wherever found. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

the sources need to be vetted. You can't assume that just because the AP posts something, that it is true. You need to find several verifiable sources that concur before taking as fact. Anybody can go to a left or right leaning news agency and pull some crap and call it a source. This kind of slanted editing is unwelcome. --RichardMills65 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

adding to preceeding comment that i concur there is an overall negative tone to the article that is lacking from other political articles, but is common when there is a heated topic at hand. While I can't volunteer to single handedly review each citation and the information placed in this article, those who feel something is out of place or incorrect should go ahead and review the source. If it is suspect in quality or origin, mark it as such and begin a discussion. --RichardMills65 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just another point of view. I find that this article is over-complimentary. It does not contain the information I came here to find. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What information was that? Perhaps if you shared what you might have been looking for it could be added. Dkendr (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a new section for neutrality edits, all, feel free to discuss and record there!Patriot1010 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality edits and discussion

Researched and found an official legislative photograph, reverted entry of a former aide criminal charge 6 years after the fact. Many were investigated for the John Doe probe (now closed), and Walker actually initiated the investigation in 2009. Adds nothing to article and viloatesWP:BLP Despite never being even alleged of wrongdoing political opponents attempted to tie him with the issue, the media sensationalized it, which failed politically. It adds nothing to the article WP:UNDUE and the editor attempted WP:NOR to advance a biased POV. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since there has been no rebuttal to this edit, nor any additional POV / neutrality discussions or amplification, I'll give the NPOV tag a couple weeks, at which point I'll remove it. 10stone5 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Asked to leave BLP violation

The "Asked to leave" BLP violation came in again today by an anon IP. This has been thoroughly debunked by a liberal leaning source http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/dec/18/scott-walker-early-years/ and the democrats dropped the claim. http://www.jsonline.com/news/democrats-drop-accusation-scott-walker-was-kicked-out-of-marquette-from-website-b99167120z1-236433671.html Unless someone can find serious sourcing for this claim it should not be in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

PolitiFact is not a "liberal leaning source" (come on now, let's be serious). But otherwise you're completely correct: there's no substance to the allegation that Walker was kicked out of college, and you correctly removed this as a BLP violation. If these sorts of BLP violations are repeatedly reinserted, please let me know and I'll semi-protect the article. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Politifact is a Pulitzer-prize winning site that is quoted by both left and right politicians. Saying it is "liberal leaning" would give adage to the phrase "facts have a liberal bias".184.91.252.144 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

MastCell Not quite sure we are there yet, but it does seem like an uptick in anon issues today. [15] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OK- I'll try to keep an eye on it, but feel free to drop me a note on my talkpage if this continues. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to that second IP, it does appear that this is a new controversy bubbling through the web today. [16] [17]. I am not sure or not if it should be added, but it definitely shouldn't be added in the way the IP did it. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with Goethean Content saying that a there was an accusation that has been retracted and debunked is not needed for the bio. It was a brief newsblip trying to gain election/political points and was a flash in the pan. 03:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Appointees section POV

Listing only cases where there were charges/arrests makes this section an obvious POV target. surely other appointees got some sort of coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? Did they do something notable? Chances are all of them showed up, did their jobs and went home, unlike these 3 who lied, cheated and stole. Which is notable whenever and whoever. Just as Obama's IRS scandal or Jesse Jackson's D-IL bribery and theft convictions are notable. 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokiecoke (talk • contribs)

This is not an article about those people. Their notability is irrelevant. This is an article about Walker, and coverage of him must be done in a neutral manner. Either we give an overview of all of his appointees, or not, but we don't pick 4 people out who made news on their own and try to convict walker via guilt by association. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless he has been directly implicated, I don't believe this section is notable to Walker. The IRS scandal referenced above is actually a good analogy for this in that it is not currently referenced on Obama. I think this section should be removed.CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I also don't believe the section on Brian Deschane is relevant or notable to Walker. I propose that it be removed as well.CFredkin (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I thought about removing the text but then thought again. I don't want to be accused of acting unilaterally. The anti-Walker partisans will have a field day if we remove text without a proper discussion and consensus, although it is clear they are using these four to stain Walker, one of the few politicians with "cojones", with guilt by association. How can we set up a discussion that can be acted upon if/when a consensus is reached?? Quis separabit? 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the discussion right here.CFredkin (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No one cares what a puppet thinks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CFredkin/Archive The Richard Nixon article mentions the firing of his appointee, Spiro Agnew, why shouldn’t the Scott Walker article mention his crooked appointees? As I recall, it was quite the scandal for a the County Exec. All men make mistakes and as an encyclopedia it is our job to report them fairly. Scott Walker deserves more than a mere white wash job.Slx03 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, dude?? I think the analogy is not really accurate. Spiro Agnew was the Vice-President of the United States, and that was in the midst of Watergate. Quis separabit? 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Agnew reference in Richard Nixon that you refer to is due to the fact that Nixon had to appoint a new VP. Walker has not been implicated in any wrongdoing on these so-called scandals.CFredkin (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, I get that. But there is supposed to be some mechanism whereby you can invite people to comment and make suggestions, and then after a certain period of time, act according to whatever consensus arises, if any. I don't know how to do it, though. Quis separabit? 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Another one? [[18]] Well, it's ok for you kids to wave your cojones in the air as you brag to yourselves, but don't pretend your doing Scott Walker (or Wikipedia) any kind of service.Slx03 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Another one?" -- I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Please clarify. I have never hidden my admiration for Walker and his having survived labor's attempted putsch. I don't find the Koch brothers to be any scarier as boogeymen than say George Soros, breaking the Bank of London, or the upcoming post-January 1, 1914 Michael Bloomberg with all the time in the world to stick his money into races anywhere and everywhere. Talk about your one percenters. I just want the article to be fair and balanced. Also, don't call me "kid" as I am almost definitely older than you. Quis separabit? 22:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of getting to a reasonable solution here, I'll stipulate that Kevin Kavanaugh and Tim Russell are relevant to the article since they were closely tied to Walker. However Rindfleisch, Wink, and Deschane had no ties to Walker beyond being employed in his administration. Any objections to removing them?CFredkin (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ask yourself, Is Obama responsible for Eric Holder? Was Clinton responsible for Janet Reno? Then Walker was responsible as County Ex for Kavanaugh et al. And try to stay focused, this is an article about Walker, not Bloomberg, Kochs or Soros. Mokiecoke (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody would know, by reading the article, that Walker has serious and continuing legal issues. Yet this is an important part of his history. No other Wisconsin governor, ever, has found it necessary to set up a legal defense fund. As others have mentioned, there's also the matter of his having personally appointed several workers who engaged in felonious behavior on his watch. Not including this essential information in the article is simply a pathetic attempt to whitewash Walker. Tell his FULL history, with citations, and let the chips fall where they may. Younggoldchip (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

CFredkin - Stop cherry-picking your quotes. Numerous sources, including the one you cited, along with court records, say this is a five-county probe:

• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "the prosecutors involved in the five-county investigation"
• Wisconsin State Journal: "Writing for prosecutors in five counties"
• USA Today: "prosecutors from five Wisconsin counties"
• New York Times: "The allegations by five county district attorneys"
• Boston Globe: "The allegations by five county district attorneys"
• New York Daily News: "A special prosecutor endorsed by district attorneys in five counties"
• Bloomberg News: "A special prosecutor requested by district attorneys in five counties"
• The New Republic: "The five county district attorneys leading the investigation"
• IN THE MATTER OF JOHN DOE PROCEEDINGS: "COLUMBIA Co. Case No. 13JDOOOOll | DANE Co. Case No. 13JD000009 | DODGE Co. Case No. 13JD000006 | IOWA Co. Case No. 13JDOOOOOl | MILWAUKEE Co. Case No. 12JD000023"

Cheers. 32.218.34.64 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I kept the reference to it being a five county investigation in my 2nd post. However multiple sources also reference the fact that the investigation was launch by a Democratic district attorney:

• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a Democrat, launched the secret probe shortly after Walker won his June 2012 recall election sparked by Act 10, the law he championed that curbed collective bargaining for most public workers."
• LA Times: After Walker became governor, Milwaukee County Dist. Atty. John Chisholm opened an investigation targeting "illegal campaign coordination between Friends of Scott Walker, a campaign committee, and certain interest groups," according to documents released Thursday
• The Journal Times: The group and O’Keefe argue that Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a Democrat who launched the investigation in August 2012 based in part on information he obtained from a previous John Doe investigation into Walker’s county executive office, has been engaged in a partisan witch hunt.
• Washington Examiner: Separately, in August 2012, Chisholm's office launched a second John Doe probe looking at possible campaign coordination violations by Walker and conservative groups during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections, appointing a special prosecutor.

This fact is well-sourced and should be mentioned.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact and it should be mentioned. This has been a partisan political witch hunt since the beginning, it should be noted, and sources confirm this fact as well. Arzel (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Two of the five district attorneys involved are Republicans. 32.218.34.64 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about who initiated the investigation. Multiple, reliable sources have indicated that it was initiated by John Chisholm, Democratic district attorney.CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, Arzel was talking about this being a partisan witch hunt, which he said necessitated identifying the party affiliation of one of the prosecutors involved. Should we identify the party affiliation of all the DAs? Or just the ones you don't like? 32.218.34.64 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I think we're supposed to assume good faith here. Besides which, that's not what either Arzel or I said. Currently the article states that the investigation was launched by 5 district attorneys. That implies that 5 district attorneys got together and simultaneously agreed that an investigation should be launched. However, as I've stated above repeatedly, multiple reliable sources have referenced the fact that the investigation was launched by John Chisholm, Democratic district attorney. The other district attorney's presumably made the decision to join the investigation later. My edit indicates this.CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Further I have yet to see a reliable source indicating that "the investigation was launched by 5 district attorneys". To make such a statement in the article is at best original research, at worst it's unsourced.CFredkin (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The record is clear (as are the refs). The Milwaukee DA launched the investigation. It was later expanded to include four other counties. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of the crimes are understood to have been committed in Milwaukee and Dane Counties, the district attorneys of which are both Democrats. It's a post hoc fallacy to conclude that the results of the investigation are tainted by the fact that those DAs are Dems; and I'd classify it as ad hominem as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What crimes? Some Democrat DA (from all available evidence) launch a witch hunt against Walker which not only does not have any validity has resulted in a civil lawsuit against those DA's which is likely to succeed. The only Ad Hominen's are those that continue to push the BLP violation that Walker actually did something illegal. Arzel (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The ones that the prosecutors of both parties now agree took place? The ones that are in all the papers across the country? (And if you want to dispute that, then a reliable source should be provided, not a press release by the Federalist Society, okay?) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't care which DA did what and for what reason. We report what reliable sources say about a subject. There is no BLP violation whatsoever when we report on reliable sources coverage of a subject. I though you know that already. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OM, there is no evidence of crimes, and the John Doe witch hunt has been shut down. Claiming that Walker committed a crime is a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The text in article does not say that Walker committed a crime. 04:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk as well. Arzel (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing what has been reported in reliable sources, so there is no BLP issue whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, it appears that the prosecutors themselves are not saying that Walker coimitted any crimes. I am shocked, SHOCKED to see the spin in the media and at wikipedia". From Schmitz: it is wrong for any person to point to this sentence in a legal argument as a finding by the special prosecutor that Governor Walker has engaged in a criminal scheme. lt is not such a finding". "Mr. Schmitz has made no conclusions as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin Witch Hunt

I made an edit under the "Wisconsin State Assembly" section that specifically referred to Scott Walker and Michael Huebsch's opposition to Rev. Jamyi Witch as being referred to as the "Wisconsin Witch Hunt," as that is the name of the linked WP article. It seemed odd to me to have the article "Wisconsin Witch Hunt" be linked under the phrase "objected to the hiring." Another member has reverted my edit. It seems more clear to me to have the incident referred to by it's name, as it was given a name that has it's own article. Seen a Mike (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit claims that the "event" came to be known as the "Wisconsin Witch Hunt". Came to be known by whom? It's not clear to me who coined the phrase, or why it's notable in Walker's BLP.CFredkin (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That discussion is better had at Talk:Wisconsin witch hunt. As long as that is the name of that article, I see no reason why not to call it as such in this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of discussions at Wisconsin witch hunt, I think my questions (and concerns) above are still valid for this article.CFredkin (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Only one of the sources uses the words "Witch hunt" and in my opinion it does so as a joking/sarcastic comment, not as a title for the controversy. In fact, very little of the reliable sourcing for the event appears to be about any controversy directed toward waker et al (IE "the hunt" is not what is controvercial) but are about the controversy of the hiring itself. I support Mike's edit, and will be proposing a move of the other article Gaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My edit was based on the weird linking between "objected to the hiring" and the article title Wisconsin witch hunt. If the article is moved, it would make sense to refer to it in terms associated with the new article title. Seen a Mike (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

An IP editor is adding content sources to two non-WP:RS [19]. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this is not an RS. It does not appear that this info was compiled by any kind of credentialed/expert genealogist. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Marquette Years

I added the following to the section on Walker's education and early life:

These activities led to the Marquette student newspaper declaring, "no one who responds to opposition by distorting (if not assassinating) the character of his opponent and making pouty accusations deserves to be president of the student body." [13] The footnote cites the Marquette student newspaper article.

This has been deleted by Gaijin42, who says is violates copyright. For the life of me, I can't determine in what sense it violates copyright. So I am placing it back up on the page in good faith, since this newspaper piece offers one of the earliest assessments of Walker's suitability for political office. As such, it is of historical interest. It strikes me that eliminating this could be politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amblerdrive (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42's edit summary: ref to copyright violation; the source violates copyright.--Polmandc (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the source is nothing but scans of multiple newspapers. Per WP:V "Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. " I am reverting the change again. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. I think there's a simple way to fix this. I can cite the article and the source without a link, just as one might do when citing a book or old journal article. That way, no copyright issues are infringed. Thanks for your direction on this. I will now make this edit, again in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amblerdrive (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you share your proposed edit here before adding it? That way we can help avoid other difficulties. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, beyond the copyright violation, a quote from a school newspaper from 27 years ago seems to have a high risk of WP:UNDUE to me. We have coverage of the incident from reliable source discussing it in the context in which it is notable. A school newspaper, that was itself a party to the incident hardly seems like the kind of source we should be using in a BLP Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the proposed addition also failed verification. The ref'd editorial from the student paper specifically says that refers to campaign literature that the editorial board despised. So that means the original research fails verification and is undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. The source has been properly quoted and cited, as per academic practices. Again, there is no copyright violation. It is also perfectly verifiable. Just because there is no internet link to it through the Marquette Tribune website, this does not mean that it does not exist. Physical copies exist in the archives of the Marquette Library.

I would certainly argue against the "undue" matter, as well. Walker himself confessed to campaign violations. Further, it fleshes out a picture of a significant figure with verifiable sources, where other sources are absent. The figure has a record of allegations regarding campaign irregularities. This is the first such episode.

Again, register my concern that this paged is being cleansed by political operatives. Amblerdrive (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have no COI and Gaijin is also a senior editor with no discernable COI. Our apparent conflict is that we disagree with your edit on policy grounds. I specifically want to point out that you have repeatedly removed "alleged" when the RS ref uses the term "alleged". You have mischaraterized the opinion piece you have attempted to use, and have reinserted material without gaining consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then I put this here for consensus: Does anyone other than Capitalismojo and Gaijin42 have a problem with the following insertion to the "early years and education" section?

"These activities led to the Marquette student newspaper declaring, "no one who responds to opposition by distorting (if not assassinating) the character of his opponent and making pouty accusations deserves to be president of the student body." [13] The footnote cites the Marquette student newspaper article.

One editor complained that this is a a copyright violation. But there is no copyright violation. It is a citation to a newspaper op-ed, cited appropriately, according to academic standards.

One editor complained that this is unverifiable. But it is perfectly verifiable in the Marquette University Library archives. There is no link, but that does not render it unverifiable.

One editor complained that this is an opinion piece. I'd grant that this is the most substantial objection. But it think fails to be a sufficient reason to strike it from the page because (1) it helps fill out an under documented segment of the biography, (2) the public figure in question has a record of suspicions about campaign irregularities and this is the first recorded instance, and (3) it offers some potential insight into the character of a man who is likely running for president -- do not citizens have a right to know this about a man who wants to be president?

I'm really not trying to be annoying. I'm simply trying to offer a balanced and documented account of the subject. Amblerdrive (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read the editorial? That specific quote is talking about Walker's campign brochures. Campaign brochures the editorial board thought were unwarranted personal attacks. That particular quote was not about the incident. That's why it fails verification. Not because the editorial doesn't exist. Please read WP:OR, WP:VERIFICATION Capitalismojo (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course I read the editorial. Yes, the quote pertains to the content of Walker's pamphlet. So perhaps, then, what is called for in the presentation is to contextualize it in response to the brochures? And then we could note the "alleged" disappearance of the copies of the Marquette Tribune. Would this pass the censors? Amblerdrive (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There are only editors, some have been around a long time some are new. You have the opportunity to convince other editors that your proposed edits improve the article. What is it that you think needs to be in the article, I would note that most political figures BLPs do not spend too much space on childhood/young adult material. (Hence the WP:UNDUE discussion). Capitalismojo (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RE "alleged": the quote (at http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/who-is-scott-walker-20110222) is this "After graduating high school, Walker enrolled at Marquette University in 1986. He ran for student body president as a sophomore, promising to balance the school’s budget problems, but lost following an alleged infringement of campaign guidelines. During his senior year, he was offered a lucrative job in marketing with the American Red Cross, and left Marquette before receiving his degree."

Therefore, ipso facto -- "alleged" restored. Quis separabit? 01:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If one actually examines the source cited in the National Journal article (Marquette Journal: http://marquettewire.org/2010/10/26/tribune/tribune-news/walker-wpo1-tw2-je3-one-question-controversial-claims-continue-in-walkers-campaign/), one finds the following:

"The Tribune reported then that he was found guilty of illegal campaigning two weeks before his candidacy became official. Later, a Walker campaign worker was seen placing brochures under doors at the YMCA. Door-to-door campaigning was strictly prohibited.

Walker initially denied this but later admitted to the violation, which resulted in lost campaign privileges at the YMCA."

The Journal turned "found guilty" and "admitted" into "alleged," which seems like shoddy journalism, and unfaithful to the source material. So, again, "alleged" seems wholly inappropriate, no? I appeal to others here -- why maintain the use of "alleged," when the source material suggest that these were not merely allegations, but convictions and admissions? Amblerdrive (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that the highly respected National Journal uses "alleged" is that student newspapers are highly suspect. Mostly we don't treat student papers as RS at wikepdia, nor generally does the broader media. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

While this is true of the National Journal, it is not true of the respected Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/dec/18/scott-walker-early-years/) and Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/scott-walker-college_n_4847939.html. Amblerdrive (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

From your Politifact ref above :" It was gentle stuff, but the Trib took offense, publishing an election-day editorial headlined, "Walker unfit." It decried his "mudslinging" and said another factor in its reversal on Walker being qualified was the alleged theft of papers, which Walker’s camp denied." That is about the same material you want to use. Politifact deems it "gentle stuff" you want to characterize it as a scandal. Interesting. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

From your other ref (Huffington Post) :"After the newspaper came out, editions with the Quigley endorsement were hard to find, leading some to accuse the Walker campaign of stealing them. There is no public evidence making that case." Perhaps that is why the National Journal uses "alleged". Capitalismojo (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are now conflating the charges. Walker was found guilty of and confessed to two violations: early campaigning and inappropriate distribution of pamphlets. Those are on the record. They are not alleged. The theft and destruction of newspapers is alleged and unestablished. Why not edit the page to reflect these facts? Amblerdrive (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not "conflating" anything, thank you. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that the handing out brochures at a YMCA or sticking student campaign flyers under a dorm room door by a supporter twenty seven years ago (the "violations" to which you refer) are significant in anyone's biography article? Is it significant? The question answers itself. Should this be included in this bio? Again, the question answers itself. Your proposed edit and research does not add value to the article as suggested. It would be (barely) noteworthy if his campaign/supporters had stolen student newspapers. That possibility is only only "alleged" in all the refs and that is, therefore, what is included in the article. As this seems now to have been patiently explained, I feel this discussion is concluded. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we have a genuine difference of opinion here. But as I have claimed here, the subject in question has been subsequently linked to campaign irregularities. So this is about a pattern of behavior in the subject's professional field. Also, given the potential importance of the subject in the field of politics, such irregularities would seem especially important, in comparison, with comparable offenses by future film stars, athletes, etc. Amblerdrive (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hendricks

I've twice removed this Huffington Post source, which was last cited to include false material. The Huffington Post article is being used to support that in 2010, Hendricks gave fifty times the maximum allowable donation to Walker. This seems to be in 2012 and under different circumstances which makes this assertion undue and improper because the sources say she gave the $10,000 (maximum amount allowable) two weeks after speaking to him. Well - more importantly, because the claim is clearly false. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The cite is actually to an Associated Press source, not a "Huffington Post source" as you say. But you already knew that, as I see you've edited the Hendricks article just minutes ago, and are certainly aware it's a syndicated AP story. I don't see where the source also says she gave $10,000 to him. Could you be more specific in pointing that out? I'll remedy the 2010/2012 discrepancy in the mean time. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hendricks did not donate $500,000 to Walker's 2010 campaign and the source does not make that assertion. Are we clear on this? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri You stated that above. How does that pertain to your latest edit? I'd really rather not have to ask at a drama board. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the fact that Hendricks not donating $500,000 to Walker's 2010 campaign is suitable reason to remove any statement saying she did. I removed it because it was false. Do you claim that Hendricks really donated $500,000 to Walker's campaign in 2010? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't say 2010 (because neither did the source, as you pointed out). It does still say she is his largest donor, however. Was that not clear? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the source at the end of the sentence... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Now you are just talking in circles. Check the source for what, exactly? (Just to be sure, I double-checked: our article no longer had the erroneous '2010' date, yet you removed the content anyway - why) Also, is this "sources say she gave the $10,000" source you mentioned forthcoming any time soon? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So if you know it is false - why are you still inserting the false claim? Hendricks made the maximum allowable donation on February 1 - the meeting with Walker was on January 18.... that is not $500,000 to his 2010 campaign. You wrote: Shortly after being elected walker had an impromptu conversation with his largest Republican donor, Diane Hendricks, who had donated $500,000 to Walker's campaign. This is false for that reason. Jsonline is correct, I don't know how much money she had contributed at the time of the conversation - you can dig around if you want, but it doesn't matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't reinsert the incorrect claim stating "to his 2010 campaign". Perhaps you missed that. If you'll read a little more closely, you'll note that I removed that erroneous portion and merely conveyed that she was Walker's biggest donor, and that she had given 500K to his campaign - just as the source said.

Thank you for providing that additional JSOnline source; that is extremely helpful with the additional details it gives:

Between 2009 and 2011, Hendricks gave $19,100 to Walker. That included a $10,000 donation - the maximum at that time for a four-year election cycle - that was made on Feb. 1, 2011, about two weeks after the personal meeting with Walker. Because Walker faces a recall, a quirk in state law allowed supporters such as Hendricks for a time to donate unlimited sums to the governor's campaign for certain expenses. Last month, Hendricks contributed $500,000 to Walker, bringing her total donations to him to $519,100 and the donations by her and Ken to all candidates to more than $1 million. On Feb. 16, 2011 - about one month after her meeting with Walker and five days after the governor unveiled his public union bill - Hendricks' company, ABC Supply, gave $25,000 to the Republican Governors Association. The association has run ads in support of Walker.

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Doh. While I did remove the offending "2010" error, the text I left could still be read to convey that the $500K donation was made earlier than it was. Please accept my apology, Chris ... I'd like to blame it on lack of morning coffee, but it was a stupid mistake on my part. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

False information?

• An active financial supporter of conservative causes, Hendricks has given Walker's campaign more than $500,000, making her Walker's largest donor.[20]

• Diane Hendricks, who has since given $510,000 to the governor's campaign - making her Walker's single-largest donor and the largest known donor to a candidate in state history. [21]

• The billionaire would eventually give Walker more than $500,000—the largest donation in Wisconsin history—to help him advance his agenda. That donation made her the largest single donor to the governor's effort to beat the June 5 recall vote.[22]

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

$500,000 was for his recall election in 2012 and was due to a "quirk" in the way donations can be made for a recall election. It is improper to imply that this donation was related to the section which you are trying to paint him with. Arzel (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Cwobeel needs to check the context. The statement said Shortly after being elected walker [sic] had an impromptu conversation with his largest Republican donor, Diane Hendricks, who had donated $500,000 to Walker's campaign. She was not the largest Republican donor nor did she donate $500,000 to the 2010 election campaign. So yes, it was an error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. So, this can be added now in the context of the recall election. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be UNDUE there because a list of donors with no context or relation to the issue is not appropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We already report on the lede the US$8,000,000 from the Koch brothers, so why would this be undue? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I already explained why. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Where? I can't find it in this thread. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the Hendricks addition. It leaves the impression with the reader that Walker is trying to use a "divide and conquer" strategy to make Wisconsin a right-to-work state. The ref'd article, however, makes it crystal clear that Walker was not pushing for right-to-work. He is explicitly quoted as saying he views private sector unions as "partners in economic development". In the article his staff denys right-to-work goals. Those of us in Wisconsin have seen him completely freeze legislative action towards right-to-work as recently as last week. I'm not sure what the point of having the Hendricks video incident adds. Are we trying to imply something corrupt? Why is the amount of her donation important in Walker's bio? What does her name add to the article at all? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that Walker was moving to address government unions before he spoke to Hendrciks, and that it was a huge budget issue both for state and local government. So what? What, precisely, does the Hendricks article bring to this biography? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's trivia, as is the insertion regarding a prank call.CFredkin (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, many read the "divide and conquer" issue as dividing organized labor as private against public unions, and even public safety unions versus teachers, bus drivers, snow plowers, etc. The article text did not say this, as one cannot read the governor's mind. It can only report on what he said. It is for the readers of the Wikipedia article to determine what he meant. But I'm with Cwobeel that it makes sense to include this insofar as it's clearly documented (it's on video, after all), it led to considerable public debate and public discussion, and it takes no editorial point of view. In other words, it is fitting for an encyclopedia entry. I think it should go back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amblerdrive (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should let readers draw their own conclusions. In this case, his actions speak for themselves.CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment: his actions and words speak for themselves. Amblerdrive (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Silly season started early, and as customary, whitewashing of politician articles is starting in earnest. Have fun, this article is off my watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Way to cast off AGF.... these types of comments are not productive and certainly do not foster an atmosphere of good will here at Wikipedia. Please do not deride others and accuse them of bad faith. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, am sympathetic to Cwobeel's frustrations. It seems that anything added to the article that represents a potential embarrassment to the subject, no matter how well documented and relevant, is eliminated promptly by a core set of editors, some of whom appear to have clearly conservative sympathies. While, obviously, there is no way to prove that this is a coordinated campaign, neither is this pattern inconsistent with Cwobeel's allegations. Amblerdrive (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)