Talk:Thomas Menino/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Thomas Menino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
Looks like somebody copy and pasted a bunch of this biography from another site. Could use some wikification, sifting and sorting. CapeCodEph 22:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it could use a lot - seems like a menino political ad. where's the stuff about his corruption and power-brokering, for instance? would be nice to see someone dig on this clown a bit. Bobbyray 06:28, 02 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree nothing on his favortism in licsencing or his blocking of commercial developments by Frank Mccourt and others. Tannim`TannimTannim 23:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a discrepancy between what's written and what's visibly shown.
At the bottom it says that Thomas Menino has been widely praised for his handling of the ads.. but the city of boston has widely been derided by various news sources, including the editors at the LA Times. Is this page protected? There are visible typos as well and I can't edit them out. Beigedickies 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, where is the administrator to edit this page? On the very last line there's a seemingly backhanded comment in favor of the mayor with an obvious typo.
POV pushing with back-handed remarks
Okay, it's gotten lame: failed to panic, After Boston's expert bomb squads were unable to determine that magnetic light boards were not explosive devices and sent the city into a day-long panic after detonating them repeatedly on television with explosives of their own, exploding the harmless depictions of cartoon charactersexploding the harmless depictions of cartoon characters,. Give me a break! I cannot assume good faith for those edits, because they're patently y. intentionally inflammatory.--Vidkun 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I Guess now that it reads like a PR release from the mayors office you are acting in good faith and I am not. By claiming that I am "patently y. intentionally inflammatory" you felt entitled to remove the facts that the signs were up for weeks, that other municipalities did not go into panic mode, and inserted the unsupported viewpoint that shutting down the city and going crazy on everybody is standard protocol. It is not, and was not followed elsewhere. The anomaly was the reaction of Boston authorities under direction of the mayor. This is not child's play and authorities out of control is a serious matter. Please refresh your memory with the Jean Charles de Menezez case where the initial reaction of the media in mindlessly supporting the authorities followed the same pattern. London eventually came around to understanding that it is wrong to assassinate wrongly identified commuters, and make false excuses for what happened, ie the "winter coat" lie the "failed to stop" lie and the "I was taking a leak while I claimed to watch who came out of the building" cover-up. I can only hope that Boston will come to its senses in the near future as well. I have no problem with anyone removing phrasing that is perceived as backhanded ie "Boston authorities were widely praised for their actions in exploding the harmless depictions of cartoon characters when they were discovered two weeks after they had been planted in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Seattle, and other major cities around the country." but the evisceration of the text you performed, removal of the relevant facts, and your unsupported assertions and self appointed expert status on standard practice in the face of all the evidence, belies any possible claim you have to good faith or neutrality. There are still people who defend the public execution of Menezez. I hope your not one of them. This does not rise to the level of the Menezez case but it shows that it can still happen. The Mayor of Boston is unhinged enough to demand that all America be subjected to his personal censorship as punishment for his damaged self esteem. I am confident that in time all attempts to enforce the Boston administration's blatently phoney official line will fail, starting with the false charges filed against the two miscreants who were arrested.68.60.68.203 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- unsupported viewpoint that shutting down the city and going crazy on everybody is standard protocol Let's see, in six of the nine other cities where these were found, they were NOT attached to things that are likely terrorist targets; in fact they were placed outside of locations likely to be frequented by the 20 somethings who watch Adult Swim. In the other cities (even the ones where they WERE attached to bridges etc) there were no other bomb threats when these items were discovered. Boston had two pipe bombs discovered that same day. While the PD was running around, in emergency reaction, the ad agency told the men who emplaced these items to keep quiet, even after they (ad agency and emplacers) knew the PD thought they might be bombs. That's obstruction. Did the city over-react? Maybe, but so what? I would rather they over-react and get it wrong than under-react and get it wrong. As for what i put up there being PR, maybe you should go read WP:POINT--Vidkun 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Glad you responded. I think you have made it clear to anyone who reads this that you edited out facts which did not support your opinion . That is POV pushing. But nothing personal here. You have a point of view and I have a very different one. Of course you should reword language that is prejudicial but when you remove facts to support your own take on the situation you are only masquerading as neutral and going to extremes to do it by locking the page. As to your arguments in support of your opinion Justifying the actions of authorities. First I'll address the false assertion "Boston had two pipe bombs discovered that day" No bombs were discovered in boston. Period. A "realistic looking" FAKE pipe bomb ( as opposed to a cartoon lite-brite) was reported in the afternoon, in a hospital basement. I am taking that report with a grain of salt, given all the disinformation circulating. Maybe someone wanting to join in all the fun that afternoon, planted it. Boston did more than over react. They created their own crisis. So who's publicity stunt got out of control here? I note that a "t" passenger told the MBTA police about a something suspicious "on an elevated structure above the Sullivan Square MBTA station early Wednesday morning" The highway was shut down and The state bomb squad was called in. Overreaction? maybe, maybe not. Compare with the reaction when one was found on a railway trestle in Seattle the day before. The situation is almost exactly the same. Workers went up and looked at it, and took it down. End of story. I think either reaction is reasonable. But here is where it all goes wrong. The bomb squad comes. The TV cameras come. Live footage - the bomb squad spend a dramatic hour approaching the thing. They examine it, determine it is "harmless" remove it, and then and only then, at 10 am they- BLOW IT UP for all the cameras. You can check the facts right here.[ http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10888086/detail.html] Why was a device already determined to be harmless blown up in front of all those cameras? Standard practice? -ABSOLUTELY NOT - standard practice would be to preserve the "evidence" at that point especially as they are now claiming criminal intent. That calls for a review right there. Maybe they were afraid to look stupid going through all that over a Lite-Brite. Maybe they were showing off for the cameras. Cannot say but it's hard to ignore. Not great,but that was only the beginning. They were trapped in there own reality warp which spiraled out of control. They still are, but it will crumble like a house of cards over the next few weeks. There is no plausible excuse for anything that followed. "So what" they over reacted (and blame everyone but themselves) is not a point. Over react vs under react ? Pure sophistry, real threats are not logical equivalents of imaginary ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
- forgot to sign also please post link to document your assertion that there was proactive obstruction ie "the ad agency told the men who emplaced these items to keep quiet, even after they (ad agency and emplacers) knew the PD thought they might be bombs. That's obstruction."
- Glad you responded. I think you have made it clear to anyone who reads this that you edited out facts which did not support your opinion . That is POV pushing. But nothing personal here. You have a point of view and I have a very different one. Of course you should reword language that is prejudicial but when you remove facts to support your own take on the situation you are only masquerading as neutral and going to extremes to do it by locking the page. As to your arguments in support of your opinion Justifying the actions of authorities. First I'll address the false assertion "Boston had two pipe bombs discovered that day" No bombs were discovered in boston. Period. A "realistic looking" FAKE pipe bomb ( as opposed to a cartoon lite-brite) was reported in the afternoon, in a hospital basement. I am taking that report with a grain of salt, given all the disinformation circulating. Maybe someone wanting to join in all the fun that afternoon, planted it. Boston did more than over react. They created their own crisis. So who's publicity stunt got out of control here? I note that a "t" passenger told the MBTA police about a something suspicious "on an elevated structure above the Sullivan Square MBTA station early Wednesday morning" The highway was shut down and The state bomb squad was called in. Overreaction? maybe, maybe not. Compare with the reaction when one was found on a railway trestle in Seattle the day before. The situation is almost exactly the same. Workers went up and looked at it, and took it down. End of story. I think either reaction is reasonable. But here is where it all goes wrong. The bomb squad comes. The TV cameras come. Live footage - the bomb squad spend a dramatic hour approaching the thing. They examine it, determine it is "harmless" remove it, and then and only then, at 10 am they- BLOW IT UP for all the cameras. You can check the facts right here.[ http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10888086/detail.html] Why was a device already determined to be harmless blown up in front of all those cameras? Standard practice? -ABSOLUTELY NOT - standard practice would be to preserve the "evidence" at that point especially as they are now claiming criminal intent. That calls for a review right there. Maybe they were afraid to look stupid going through all that over a Lite-Brite. Maybe they were showing off for the cameras. Cannot say but it's hard to ignore. Not great,but that was only the beginning. They were trapped in there own reality warp which spiraled out of control. They still are, but it will crumble like a house of cards over the next few weeks. There is no plausible excuse for anything that followed. "So what" they over reacted (and blame everyone but themselves) is not a point. Over react vs under react ? Pure sophistry, real threats are not logical equivalents of imaginary ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
- unsupported viewpoint that shutting down the city and going crazy on everybody is standard protocol Let's see, in six of the nine other cities where these were found, they were NOT attached to things that are likely terrorist targets; in fact they were placed outside of locations likely to be frequented by the 20 somethings who watch Adult Swim. In the other cities (even the ones where they WERE attached to bridges etc) there were no other bomb threats when these items were discovered. Boston had two pipe bombs discovered that same day. While the PD was running around, in emergency reaction, the ad agency told the men who emplaced these items to keep quiet, even after they (ad agency and emplacers) knew the PD thought they might be bombs. That's obstruction. Did the city over-react? Maybe, but so what? I would rather they over-react and get it wrong than under-react and get it wrong. As for what i put up there being PR, maybe you should go read WP:POINT--Vidkun 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy68.60.68.203 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that point of view shouldn't be pushed here, but you'd be pretty damn foolish to actually suggest that the mayor's office and various other public officials didn't severely overreact in nearly every way possible. Not only that, but it shows the incompetence of the public services in the city in which they failed to recognize a dozen or so unknown objects spread across the city in the two or so weeks they had been up. Don't get me wrong, I just don't see how they could've been mistaken for any explosive device, but to not notice so many items in prominent locations for so long is borderline incompetent. So, in all honesty, the mayor's office deserves notice for those two shortcomings right there. It'd be POV to not include at least mention of them. RPH 16:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- exactly the point, the references to comparative reactions were removed and the viewpoint that detonating a known harmless device in front of television cameras, (destroying what would be evidence if this was considered a deliberate hoax at the time) was "standard practice" was inserted 68.60.68.203 10:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that point of view shouldn't be pushed here, but you'd be pretty damn foolish to actually suggest that the mayor's office and various other public officials didn't severely overreact in nearly every way possible. Not only that, but it shows the incompetence of the public services in the city in which they failed to recognize a dozen or so unknown objects spread across the city in the two or so weeks they had been up. Don't get me wrong, I just don't see how they could've been mistaken for any explosive device, but to not notice so many items in prominent locations for so long is borderline incompetent. So, in all honesty, the mayor's office deserves notice for those two shortcomings right there. It'd be POV to not include at least mention of them. RPH 16:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Image
It seemed right to have an picture, but I have no prior image experience, so feel free to move it around, poke and prod- and by all means, if you find a better one, replace it. Stilgar135 03:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I put up a picture I took of the mayor with the appropriate copyright settings. Toasterb 23:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"Mumbles"
I understand that the quotation section is frequently vandalized. But it is a simple fact that Menino is widely known as "Mumbles," and that's not just because of a "distinctive voice" and malapropisms. The man has incredibly sloppy diction by any standard, which may actually be considered a speech defect. He has considerable difficulty in speaking clearly, especially in impromptu situations. This is noteworthy, and there has to be some way to note this fact without being NPOV, without being gratuitiously insulting, and without going for cheap laughs. It would be difficult. His speech is widely ridiculed by supporters and opponents alike. He really is called "Mumbles" by supporters, opponents, reporters, commentators, etc. This may seem NPOV and mean-spirited, but it's not. It's one of the defining characteristics of who Menino is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.147.189 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Big Dig?
I notice that there is no mention of the blatant patronage and cronyism sweeping the big dig.
It might also be interesting to hear about thyat idea of his to put shoes on the statues.
Just in general to all the people who have complained that the article is too one-sided and neglects to cover some more controversial areas: Get off your ass and do it yourself. Don't complain and order us to do the work for you.Zzz345zzz 18:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This guy "JWM65" Vandalizes this article on an almost daily basis. It is probably some loser kid with nothing better to do. I suggest locking the article.
The Big Dig was a project of the Massachusetts government not of the City of Boston.Bostoner (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Quotation Section
The quotations section of this article is completely unsourced and very frequently vandalized. On top of all this, the quotations add very little to the otherwise informative nature of the article. Wikiquote is the location for listing quotes without specific article intent. CapeCodEph 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- He pronounced "stature" as "statue". So? Bostonians eat terminal r's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I'd expect a Bostonian to pronounce "stature" as "statue". Argyriou (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am a native Bostonian, though I don't live in the City of Boston, but only a few miles from it. We do, in fact, pronounce "stature" and "statue" differently. Most of us do indeed pronounce the 'r' in "stature", but even those who don't pronounce it 'stacha' and "statue" as 'stachoo'. Menino obviously confused the 2 words. It has nothing do with his Boston accent.Bostoner (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Copy-vio status
Noting the copyright violation (and, on an unrelated note, having completely forgetten I'd marked this page for clean-up last month), I synthesized a new biography for Mumbles using a variety of sources. I removed the self-aggrandizing (and unformatted) mumbo-jumbo from the City of Boston biography, which should elminate the neutrality problem.
If you care to "dig up dirt" (to quote Mumbles himself) on this "clown," please follow NPOV standards in doing so. CapeCodEph 07:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
This is blatant liberal propaganda. I hope Wikipedia was paid to post this garbage.
This ass clown can't tell the difference between a light-bright and a bomb! The perfect bureaucrat he only spent $750,000.00 to take down 9 signs. SWEET JESUS
- It's not "liberal" propaganda, but it is clearly pro-Menino propaganda, and yes, quite lame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.146.84 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Why no criticsm
How about putting in Menino's blocking of projects by developers he doesn't like. His inteference at the Boston Public librarySolarsheen (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, and the "Stop Snitching" fiasco, among other things. The fact that so little negative is mentioned about a major city mayor who's been in the position for over 15 years is incredible to say the least, and suggests to me that there are Menino supporters monitoring and editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.146.84 (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)