Talk:John Kasich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial comment

I know, I've heard the rumors about Kasich, too, so I reluctantly left in the gay-baiting stuff without researching it. It's a pretty incendiary thing to have in here without sourcing, and sourcing shouldn't be that hard to find, I'd think.--Inonit 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Kasich not gay

The only article available (so far as I can find) on Lexis-Nexis is this: 'OUTING' BECOMES ELECTION STRATEGY October 21, 1996 Monday, FINAL / ALL METRO; Pg. 1B By AFI-ODELIA E. SCRUGGS; PLAIN DEALER REPORTER I can't post it here because it is not public domain. However, the article basically says Cynthia Ruccia alleged Kasich was gay so that he would be hurt in the election. Money quote: "His constituency is known to be hostile to gay rights. Cuthbertson admits that allegations of homosexuality could hurt Kasich's re-election chances. Ruccia knows it; that's why she's raising the issue." Does one story from a state newspaper without any supporting evidence deserve inclusion? Rkevins82 16:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, "Kasich not gay" isn't how I would put it; I'd say there's little evidence either way. But in any case, I'd say the question is not "is Kasich gay" but "were/are the Kasich-is-gay rumors significant in the context of his career." Everybody knew about them, and it certainly may be true that they influenced Dole heavily. And the gay rumors --> sudden marriage --> run for Presidency sequence, in quick succession, raises the question of whether Kasich thought the rumors were significant. I dunno. I left it in for now.--Inonit 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Little evidence? I would say being married for eight years and denying being gay, in the face of no convincing evidence of his homosexuality, is fairly strong. Do we have any evidence that Dole was influenced by the rumor? The suggestion that "gay rumors --> sudden marriage -->run for Presidency sequence, in quick succession" is a little out of touch. Here is a timeline:

• 1989 - Kasich starts dating Karen Waldbillig
• March 29, 1996 - approximately two dozen House freshmen recommended Dole choose Kasich
• August 10, 1996 - Dole picks Kemp for VP
• October 21, 1996 - gay rumor story (only one on Lexis-Nexis)
• March 22, 1997 - Kasich marries Waldbillig
• February 15, 1999 - Kasich form presidential exploratory committee

So what's up in the air? The couple was discreet, but they were seen together prior to marrying. Rkevins82 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a side issue, but ...

1. being married is hardly conclusive evidence (Rock Hudson was married), let alone "denying" being gay,
2. these rumors about GOP congressmen have a reasonably good record of being true (Mark Foley, David Dreier, Randy Cunningham).

Sounds like you know more than me about the relationship with Waldbillig. Anyway, I stick with "a little bit of evidence each way."

The main point is: it may well be that Kasich is not gay. However, the rumors were well-known, well prior to Ms. Scruggs' article. And they may well have affected things like Dole's decision -- I would have been shocked if they did not. I don't think they affected Kasich much with the public as I don't think the rumors were well-known there (as your search reveals, the media didn't do much with them). But with insiders, my view would be that they affected him, particularly as a Republican. That said, I weakened the claims the original editor made.--Inonit 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

More can be drawn from 'IN HIS POLITICS AND IN HIS HEART, KASICH IS NEVER FAR FROM HOME by Joe Hallet, June 6, 1999. Rkevins82 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also see, KASICH AT THE CROSSROADS; WILL A REPULICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM WESTERVILLE BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT? by Christopher Evans, June 7, 1998. Rkevins82 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Kasich is now on some VP shortlists for 2008, what's the latest on this? I heard that he is no longer married. Also, does anyone know if his marriage in 1996 (at the age of 44) was his first? Does he have any children?75.69.32.133 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Faveuncle

Budget Chairman section

The wikipedia article reads, "Later that year, the Penny-Kasich Plan, which would have cut federal spending by $90 billion, failed by only six votes.[6]" The citation goes to an article in Time magazine which state more accurately, "[Penny] and Ohio Republican John Kasich are sponsoring a proposal for $103 billion in further cuts over five years." Is there any compelling reason not to change the text of the wikipedia article to, "Later that year, the Penny-Kasich Plan, which would have cut federal spending by $103 billion over five years, failed by only six votes.[6]"? --75.180.45.107 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

okTastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

New picture?

The man is running for Governor of Ohio, can't we have a better picture of him? The black and white just is not cutting it. :)

21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --VWBot (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has been reverted by a bot to this version to remove User:CAFESDO's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. VWBot (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Please debate the controversy section before deleting it because you like Kasich. Many people have a controversy section, including Bill O'Rielly, whose Controversy article is longer than the main page. I did not make an attempt to find all the relevant controversies, I can if you wish. Downthedoor 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The item about Robertson is improperly sourced. There is only one source among all those listed that claims that Kasich said that Robertson was guilty of nothing but bad timing and that source is a blog and as such isn't considered an acceptanble source by Wikipedia. See WP:RS. The item about Kasich postulating on divorces is non notable and the source resolves to a Lexis Nexis login page anyway. I am neither a fan of Kasich or a foe, but this section is improperly sourced and hardly worthy of the term controversy. I am removing the sections as per WP:Notability, WP:RS and WP:BLP because reliable sources do not assert the claims.Caper13 08:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The item about Robertson came from a blog of a professional writer in the field, but I will pull the transcripts for you. I am sorry you do not have a subscription to Lexus-Nexus, but there are ADMINS you do. Lexis-Nexis is a valid source for transcripts. Non-notable? Typical man... I received an email the next day from N.O.W., after watching him say it the night before. I can see that you are a defender of conservative men, with all the Rush Limbaugh defending you do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Downthedoor (talk • contribs)

I don't know why you are attacking me. If you have some sort of agenda I suggest you take it elsewhere. I edit a variety of articles and remove invalid items I see regardless of the politics involved but I have nothing to prove in either case. Caper13 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not notable, but the *claim* that he might be gay something that is? (And I am not saying to remove it, I would just think it would be the first thing to go when you are cleaning up your golden boys page).

And per the Notability guidelines, there is NOTHING in the section about removing facts outright. Please review the guidelines again before vandalizing the page. And per the RS guidelines "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

This is not something that needs to be pulled while we debate it. I appreciate the work you do, but please make sure you are correct before you go pulling items that you do not like out of articles.

And why did it sit for so long untouched if it was not in line with policy? It was only after the most recent edit did you apply your own rules. I will repost it in 12 hours unless convinced otherwise. Downthedoor 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article claiming he is gay, though if it did without airtight proof it would violate WP:BLP and I would remove it. If I missed it, please point it out to me so I can review it.

That blog is not by a well known professional writing in a field of expertise. As such it is not usable as a source.

This recent section was added a couple of weeks ago from what I can see. That isnt that long in an article that doesnt get a lot of traffic. As to why no one else noticed it , one person apparently did, but even so it doesnt matter if it violates policy. As far as notability goes, if my purpose was in trying to make Kascich look good, I would leave all this in there. It is so weak that it makes him look good in comparison. But the purpose here is to write a decent article.Caper13 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the comment about some celebrity break ups is basically "so what". It is a well known fact that some marriages break up because one partner does much better than the other, especially in Hollywood and it more commonly happens when the formerly more successful one is eclipsed by the formerly less successful one. Asking the question isnt notable (or even interesting IMHO). Its not like he was saying the women shouldnt have gone out and been successful, and there is no source asserting that is what he was implying. It is a fairly banal question on a fairly boring subject. Hardly worthy of note for any purpose. Caper13 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the criticisms aren't valid. Saying that someone's medical occurs because of divine retribution for political moves is definitely controversial. The second part I think is more banal, I agree, so maybe that part should be taken out. OneWorld22 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are questioning one of the three sorces. From your blog, she is a "Writer and journalist, author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood (1989) and Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality (1999). Columnist for Reason (monthly) and The Boston Globe (weekly)." She qualifies for a valid sorce as both a journalist AND as a author published by a third party. If you have questions, google her, visit her home page. You can also vist her wikipedia article that classifies her as a AUTHOR. If you have any questions regarding her author published by a third party status, please leave it below, do not remove the item from the page because you disagree with it.

the circumstances in which a blog is an acceptable source are limited and exceptional. This is not one of them and does not meet the policy. Just because this person has had items published by a couple of third parties, does not then make her personal blog (which is considered WP:OR an acceptable source. Her items published and subject to the editorial control of reputable third parties could be, but not a simple blog. See WP:RS. If you can't come up with a reputable third party source to cite the item in question, then that is also an indication of its lack of notability, because if the information on the person's blog is really worth reporting, someone else would have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. So, if no one else saw fit to publish this story, it is an indication it is either not true, not notable, or something in between. (her interpreation of semi true events may be skewed away from what most people consider the truth. Caper13 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think one pertinent section from WP:BLP is this, "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." Rkevins82 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bigoted Racist Ignorant Sexist, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/28/us-ohio-governor-diversity-idUSTRE70R6XV20110128

Ohio Governor John Kasich defended himself on Friday against criticism from black Ohio lawmakers that he hadn't named any racial minorities to his cabinet, saying two prospects he had asked had refused. Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said the new Republican administration approached two African-Americans for two positions, but they "passed on the opportunity."

"The over-arching philosophy of the administration is that Ohio needs the best and brightest and also needs people who share the governor's vision for cutting taxes to make Ohio more economically competitive," said Nichols. He added that the office will continue to try to "make the cabinet as diverse as possible."

In a statement Thursday, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus criticized Republicans in both the Kasich administration and the state's legislature for failing to place minorities in key positions. "It is feeling more like 1811 and not 2011 in the state of Ohio," said Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland), in a statement. She said that other Republican administrations in recent Ohio history had diverse cabinets.

Perhaps member of KKK too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve article

I have some suggestions for improving the article. Should we try and move some of the things from “Gubernatorial positions” to “Actions”, especially considering that most things in “positions” have already happened?

I would suggest moving “John Kasich, was sworn in at midnight on January 10, 2011 in a private ceremony at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus. It was followed by a ceremonial inauguration at the Ohio Theatre at noon on the same day.[5]” from “actions” to the last line of “gubernatorial campaign” as being sworn in doesn’t, in my mind, denote significant action or change undertaken by the governor. I also think that it would make sense to change “Post congressional political involvement” to simply “Post Congress”, and then include two smaller sections: “Political involvement” and “Private sector”.

It seems to me some things in this article either need to be moved to a controversy or criticism section, since they seem both out of place and WP:UNDUE. This includes “Violation of campaign finance allegations”, “Significant Salary Increases for His Top Staff”, his comment in front of the EPA, the traffic violation controversy, not moving into the governors mansion, and the lack of diversity in his cabinet. I know good Wikipedia articles don’t have controversy or criticism sections, but considering that an overwhelming majority of the "Governor of Ohio" section is negative coverage or criticism, we need to put these topics into a separate section until more information is added to balance out the negative press.

I'm going to let this comment sit for a day or two and if no objections are raised I'll make the changes I proposed. Afterward I'll try and do some research to find more information in order to expand the article.

I also found a reference that need to be tagged as a dead link, but I don’t have permission to change it myself. Reference 38 = http://www.thenews-messenger.com/Story_not_found Bowmerang (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagged until a better one can be found.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CREW list

I don't see any secondary sources to show that this list of the worst governors is notable. It seems to me like one of those partisan groups that attacks a certain party for political reasons, but that few take seriously. If there are some notable ethical issues that have been reported on in some reliable sources, then maybe those should be in the article, but the CREW stuff itself should not. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The CREW list is apparently getting lots of coverage all over the country. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] That equates with notability on wikipedia. And the list is not partisan, there are some Dems on it.[7]. I have been saying for years, before you accuse a statement of being unsourced, please google it. Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Those sources don't establish the notability of this list as it relates to Kasich. Almost every special interest group puts out some list or rating. Even out of the sources you listed, the only major national source (an NPR blog) pointed out the skew towards naming Republicans. There was some Ohio blog that briefly mentioned Kasich's inclusion, while also pointing out the apparent bias. That's not good enough in my opinion for it to be in the article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are changing your argument. You challenged the CREW list's notability. I sourced it is being reported in mainstream media all over the country. The list is notable. Kasich's name is on the list, along with 17 others (not my governor, I don't have a horse in this race). His presence on an exclusive list like that is notable. Trackinfo (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue in deciding whether it belongs in the article is its notability as it relates to this article. It doesn't sound so exclusive if a fourth of the governors are on it every year. I looked at the pages of a few other governors and it looks like there's been some dispute about this issue on some of them too. We should probably just wait to hear what others have to say about it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability

The notability of Kasich has nothing to do with his recent announcement of his candidacy. Thus, that candidacy does not need to be in the opening paragraph. In a few months he may be out of the race completely. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously his notability is due in large part to his candidacy per Google News. As you know, WP:OPENPARAGRAPH requires that "the opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context." Any mainstream reporter in the United States would include Kasich's presidential candidacy in the first sentence neutrally describing him, and providing context, let alone the first paragraph. I think you know this, and you know that you have no consensus for this edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

@Anythingyouwant: @Cwobeel:

Hold up guys, we're beginning an edit war. Mention of his candidacy is important, but unless he is a party nominee, mention in the first paragraph isn't prudent, plus present wording isn't that good. Spartan7W § 03:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's what he is now best known for, next to being governor of Ohio. Did you look at the ref I provided? Is it okay with you if all the Democratic presidantial candidates have their candidacies mentioned in their lead paragraphs, but the GOP candidates don't?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that any politician who is a candidate, but not the virtual or actual nominee, should have such in their lead paragraph. Their service in public office and private affairs is above that. Spartan7W § 04:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If a person is more notable for their candidacy than anything else about them, doesn't Wikipedia policy require it to be in the lead paragraph? For example, few people ever heard of Bernie Sanders prior to his presidential campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What are the democratic candidates have to do with this? If you want to discuss these, there are talk pages for that. Now to the issue at hand: The candidacy of Kasich is NOT the most notable thing about this person (read his bio). He just announced a few weeks ago! See WP:RECENTISM. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that the articles: Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb all have it in their opening paragraph. And it's relevant to discuss the other presidential candidates, because how they are all treated can show a bias tendency, if they are not treated the same. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a moot point now. All articles of potential 2016 presidential candidates have now been standardized to chronological order, which is probably the most sensible way to handle this. That way, regardless of the other accomplishments of the candidate, no undue weight is put on their candidacy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a bio

... and not a political pamphlet. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your point? I don't see much pamphlet-y about this article. Your edits don't seem to revert anything which isn't of encyclopedic value. You could reword, perhaps, but the information is relevant. Spartan7W § 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

An what in the hell is this if not words that belong in a pamphlet?

Kasich utilized a number of cost-saving reforms without raising taxes and signed the new balanced budget on June 30, 2011. The budget included the elimination of the estate tax and the continuation of a previously passed income tax cut for all Ohioans.

And in Wikipedia's voice to boot. I mean, really? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You can easily reword, I agree. However, balancing of the budget without increase in taxation, and with elimination of various taxes, is relevant information. Give it a neutral voice. Spartan7W § 22:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Human Rights Campaign

User:Neutrality, HRC is not a reliable source for statements of fact in the LGBT section. It appears to be a blog with no discernible editorial control. Any other sources?CFredkin (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC) I've removed 2 statements which didn't appear to be adequately supported by the sources provided in the HRC article, and updated the source for another statement.CFredkin (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a well-known advocacy group which tracks LGBT rights issues; they are reliable for legislators' votes, even though I wouldn't cite them in the opinion context. Nevertheless, I agree that a newspaper source or similar would be better; I will see what I can track down.

By the way, thanks for finding the Dispatch replacement source. Neutrality^talk 07:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hawk bit

This piece from the Tampa Bay Times and this piece from CBS News basically say the same thing (Kasich was considered hawkish on the House Committee on the Armed Services), but the only difference is that the CBS piece qualifies that as "fairly hawkish" - which I think is probably the better, more prudent wording. It's a minor point, and I'm not married to it, but that's why I think the CBS bit is a better characterization. Neutrality^talk 21:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

SB 5 direct quote/paraphrase consistency

On SB 5: We should have some consistency in terms of direct quotes vs. media summaries/paraphrases when it comes to argumentation on a contested issue. If we reproduce the "job creator/tax burden" quote directly from Kasich, for example, then as a matter of elementary balance we should have a relevant direct quote of comparable length from someone on the side opposite: e.g., "Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga characterized SB 5 as "a politically motivated, unprovoked attack on nurses, fire fighters, teachers, all those delivering essential services."). Likewise, if we paraphrase one, we should paraphrase the other.

My preference would be a paraphrase/brief summary of arguments (it's shorter and the signal-to-noise ratio is better than quotes), as we had before, but I would be open to a full direct quote so long as there is consistency. Neutrality^talk 01:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

501 (c)(4)

The description of 501(c)(4)'s in this edit was made in passing in a long article. It's undue to include it in Kasich's bio. If reader's want more info on 501(c)(4)'s, they can click on the wikilink provided.CFredkin (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. First, if it is "made in passing in a long article," that is strong evidence that it is not undue. Second, the fact that a reader can "click over to another article" does not justify the deletion of a sentence of well-sourced, relevant content. If this was a four-paragraph description of the precise nature of 501(c)(4)s, then that would belong in the 501(c) article. But a brief, one-sentence description of the very purpose for which Kasich's group was formed (= fundraising vehicle) is helpful, even necessary, for the reader's understanding. This is all the more true because we are writing for an international audience without knowledge of U.S. tax law and election law.

Nevertheless, I plan on expanding and restructuring the (currently short) campaign section sometime in the next few days. It may well be that I can come up with something that we can both live with. 23:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's salient to his bio (much less to a section on the balanced budget). There's no suggestion that it's illegal or even unethical to create a 501(c)(4), and it's certainly not unusual. It's just a fact, which is unrelated to his bio.CFredkin (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC) BTW, personally I don't have a problem with inserting "as a fundraising vehicle" to address the issue you raise above.CFredkin (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoever mentioned anything illegal or unethical? You are reading far too much into it. Neutrality^talk 01:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

My edits

FWIW, I am neither against or in favor of Kasich for President, although my domestic partner has endorsed him publicly. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as your edits are neutral and follow Wikipedia policy, you don't have to tell us any of this. - SantiLak (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

on semi protection

I believe this page and all pages having to do with major candidates which are not already semi protected should be. political candidates may have their pages vandalized by people who disagree with their opinions. this has already happened to the pages of Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson JerrySa1 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We do not semi-protect Wikipedia pages preemptively. If significant vandalism occurs that will be prevented by semi-- or other protection, it will be applied as needed. The place to request protection is here. General Ization ^Talk 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JerrySa1 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Kasich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016173513/http://www.alphasigmaphi.org/index.php/20101103395/News/Brother-Kasich-Elected-Ohio-Governor.html to http://www.alphasigmaphi.org/index.php/20101103395/News/Brother-Kasich-Elected-Ohio-Governor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on John Kasich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131025100019/http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/may/28/kasich-looks-at-nation-gop-and-finds-both-in/ to http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/may/28/kasich-looks-at-nation-gop-and-finds-both-in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110321111215/http://www.dispatchpolitics.com:80/live/content/insight/stories/2010/09/26/copy/division.html?adsec=politics&sid=101 to http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/insight/stories/2010/09/26/copy/division.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150725175620/https://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/tag/sb-5/ to https://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/tag/sb-5/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101019155318/http://www.politicsdaily.com:80/2010/09/30/is-john-kasich-married/ to http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/30/is-john-kasich-married/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Language in Abortion Section

The tone of the abortion section seems biased toward the "pro-choice" side of the argument. This can be seen through the constant use of the term "anti-abortion," paired with a stating of facts that paints his stance in a negative light. Perhaps a neutral writer could revisit this section so that it seems like less than an argument against his actions. 146.115.144.88 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

McKees Rocks

Effectively McKees Rocks is Pittsburgh. I'm from Walthamstow which is 7.5 miles from London. I don't say I am from there I say I am from London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C000:7B59:C2A:3B15:5FF0:6D98 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Neutral Language in Abortion Section[edit]

Neutrality neutralizes the truth. Something Wikipedia and its directors in the CIA are very good at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C000:7B59:C2A:3B15:5FF0:6D98 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion

The "Post-Gazette" in Pittsburgh recently ran a story that explained Kasich wanted to be a Roman Catholic priest. Today, he is a member of the Anglican Church in North America. Was he also an Episcoplian along the way? Would it be more accurate to state: "Anglican Church in North America (former Roman Catholic, Episcopalian)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.54.52 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

He was raised Roman Catholic, became a lapsed Catholic, and then started attending Anglican services. He was never Episcopalian (which is, like the Anglican Church in North America, an Anglican organization). --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Another Republican with more than one wife

I hope he has no religious values because he broke his promise to God 'until death do us part' How can these politicans justify being religious when they constantly break vows to God? it's not just him; it's all of the hypocrites. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your personal moral beliefs don't belong in a wikipedia article, so why are you discussing them on the talk page? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

New RfC opened: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization ^Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Policing Standard

Someone clean this up. It has 2 almost identical paragraphs saying the same thing. Coradon (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

• Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.

• Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?

• Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.

• Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016 Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[8] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[9] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[10] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[11] Discuss on article talk page. Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[12] Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page. Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[13] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[14] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[15] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[16] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13. Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body, Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[17] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content

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

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting:

2010, 2011, those are the years of the tamil war and the subsecuent shelling of declared safe regions. Smells like there is a link between this and the Zanesville massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.251.190 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Kasich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504072922/http://www.heraldstaronline.com/page/content.detail/id/569962/Kasich-relaxes-at-Wells-Academy.html?nav=5010 to http://www.heraldstaronline.com/page/content.detail/id/569962/Kasich-relaxes-at-Wells-Academy.html?nav=5010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628202819/http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/statehouse-oath-a-step-back-in-time-for-kasich to http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/statehouse-oath-a-step-back-in-time-for-kasich
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111073735/http://www.10tv.com:80/live/content/local/stories/2011/01/09/story-columbus-kasich-inauguration-preview.html?sid=102 to http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/01/09/story-columbus-kasich-inauguration-preview.html?sid=102

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath

The "Aftermath" section could certainly use updating. --Haruo (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Kasich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C979537%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.columbusdispatch.com/topstory.php?story=dispatch%2F2005%2F07%2F15%2F20050715-A1-02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107125555/http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/call-post-all-ohio-edition/mi_8089/is_20101110/governors-mansion-red-john-kasich/ai_n56453309/ to http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/call-post-all-ohio-edition/mi_8089/is_20101110/governors-mansion-red-john-kasich/ai_n56453309/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/01/09/story-columbus-kasich-inauguration-preview.html?sid=102

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)