Talk:Jim Gibbons (American politician)

Quote and plagiarism

HI. I've got a question. That quote from Gibbons was plagiarized. Should it be listed as a quotation from Gibbons? [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.110.51 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2005 (UTC)

alot of this "biography" is opinon actually an "article page"

seems to me that more negative than positive quotes exist here. alot of this page is anti republican, and should not be here. these articles need to be politically neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegassteven (talk • contribs) 22 September 2006 (UTC)

there is a lot of point of view material in this entry and it should not be here as it is non-encyclopedic. therefore, it has been deleted. it is apparent that someone, or a group of individuals, are intent on vandalizing this page with unsubstantiated and bogus information, eg including the charges leveled in the last days of the governor's campaign, all of which have yet to be proven and some have been disproven by forensic evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msfixit (talk • contribs) 21 November 2006 (UTC)

From Nevada dude: Information that was largely POV or driven by personal agenda was removed as non-encyclopedic or otherwise political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevada dude (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the information that you don't like is properly sourced. ;-) 12.158.161.59 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"and some have been disproven by forensic evidence." - You realise that only a court of law can determine this? Even police/agent reports are subject to hearsay outside of operational matters (but protected as per Qualified privilege) until the Judiciary says otherwise.

"seems to me that more negative than positive quotes exist here. alot of this page is anti republican, and should not be here" - I'm not sure whether I see the particular sections that are anti-republican in nature? Seems to mostly be about the individual Public Figure, in fact I don't even see much mention of his Cabinet... So...? As to there being more negative quotes than positive quotes, Feel free to add any positive, inspirational or otherwise quotes from the good Governor that you can muster up - I encourage any attempts to increase knowledge, provided it's cited and NPOV. That may prove difficult, but I'm sure you can find a positive quote from him, if you would like to contribute.

"it is apparent that someone, or a group of individuals, are intent on vandalizing this page with unsubstantiated and bogus information" - A combined effort? You mean a Cons****cy? Easy there, Relax now..... don't want to turn yourself into a cliché, now do we?

On the other hand, if you really feel that there has been INsubstantiated and/or bogusectomological information posted, kindly quote the _specific_ areas so we can fix it up, straight away!

Remember, it's your duty to report and/or remove improperly cited material in articles about living persons immediately! Then again, if it's a published piece by a professional newswriter, and your language in referring to it is NPOV, then it ought to be okay. If not, I'm sure someone will edit it for improvement.

Things you don't agree with aren't necessarily Neutral, but it may suggest that you may not be so much, or possibly you misread the article. Intent and emotion is hard in text form, isn't it? Especially when it's dry like old crackers, don't you agree?

Mmm. Hungry now.

WOOF

Wernhervonbraun (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mormon?

Gibbons is listed in the "Latter Day Saint politicians" category, but I can only find a small handful of references to his affiliation with the LDS church. Most are wikipedia-mirrors, and the rest are unreliable blogs. I'm removing this for now per WP:BLP. -Porlob 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous references to Gibbon's faith in the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Reno Gazette Journal. The two major newspapers in Nevada are hardly wikipedia-mirrors or unreliable blogs. "Jim Gibbons was born and raised LDS and considers himself a Mormon to this date," said campaign manager Robert Uithoven. http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060510/NEWS07/605100348/1002

Great. I'll add that to the article. Note that all I was doing was trying to add verifiability. -Porlob 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gibbons' Age

he is not 61.. I have known Jim since I was a little kid.. he is my uncle and i know he is not my dads age.. so shut the hell up and leave the poor guy alone..

criticism deleted by las vegas-based IP

An IP address located in Nevada (24.234.74.222) is the source of recent edits which completely wiped any mention of criticism and controversy. Please assist with policing this. MilitaryTarget 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The portion of this entry devoted to scandals does seem highly unusual. A journalist complaining about a politician using rhetoric in a public-policy debate hardly seems noteworthy at all. And the alleged sexual assault incident is given very dominant coverage for an unsubstantiated charge. (For comparison, is President Clinton's biography dominated by coverage about the claims made by Juanita Brodderick?) This isn't an encyclopedia entry; it's a political hit piece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.233.70 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Reference to religion incorrect

Under the "Biography" heading, the very first reference listing links to an article about JIM GIBSON, the mayor of Henderson, Nevada, NOT Jim GIBBONS, the United States Congressman for Nevada. This should be deleted, it's not even the right person! [2]

Fixed. Feel free to do it yourself the next time, per [WP:BB]]. John Broughton | Talk 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Gibbons is LDS

Neutrality

The Neutrality tag has been on the page for a while, and there has been no discussion of it. I will remove it if there are no objections. --70.173.47.6 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. This page is hardly neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.147.222 (talk • contribs) 12 March 2008 (UTC)

everything is cited. what is biased about objective news reporting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taychert (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A biography can be biased and truthfull at the same time. For instance, if someone wrote a biography about Bill Clinton and only talked about Monica Lewinsky, and his impeachment and disbarment would it be a neutral and unbiased article? Of course, if you are writing a biography of Adolph Hitler you don't need to emphasize his love of dogs, but this article seems to attack Gibbons conservative politics along with reporting some of his contraversies in a more negative manner than is needed. For instance, it talks about budget cuts without mentioning why he thought they were neccesary. Mikevegas40 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is awful with respect to neutrality and more important with respect to being encyclopedic. I've made a number of changes and will try to explain some.

First, with respect to popularity I removed references to his popularity on a particular tv show and through catcalls at a university and instead referenced a poll of his approval rating. The previous version didn't really address the larger issue of his popularity which the poll does a better job of.

With respect to the Yucca mountain decision by Gibbons, I removed the multiple quotes opposing his move by varying media/political sources and instead summarized opposition and listed only Reid's quote. While pointing out the opposition to his move is warranted, listing multiple and random quotes of opposition that make the same redundant point isn't necessary and suggests bias. This is a recurrent problem in this article.

In favors for mining industry donors, I changed it to allegation because otherwise the title is misleading. Otherwise I eliminated several weasel words which attempted to downplay the passage of the bill. Despite that I believe the general point and tone of the paragraph hasn't been changed as that wasn't may intent (as I mention later I'm not particularly familiar with Nevada politics).

Lamoille Land Deal - I removed the claim of newspaper support which is irrelevant and clearly a biased addition. Similarly, I removed the subjective characterization 'remarkable' later.

Overall this article really needs to have some type of neutrality review and needs to be reexamined. It reads like an opposition research page, and a bad one at that with respect to its myopia. I'm not particularly familiar with Nevada politics so there may be those who can do a better job with respect to the extra editing it desperately needs. I don't know how to add some type of neutrality notice or just some type of sloppiness notice but this page really needs one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.246.45 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The above objection is clearly not by anyone from Nevada, even if he hadn't made that disclaimer. Gibbons is a profoundly unpopular governor and issues like the Lamoille land deal and backpedaling on Yucca are major, significant issues. I originally came to this page to see if there was more I didn't know, and instead found this page lacking some of the most important, most-talked about facts and controversies in Nevada. To have an article that purports to be encyclopedic exclude that much relevant information is truly shocking.

As such, I reversed the above user's edits, and think that while the article could use some better rewording, if you think this article is "biased" don't just delete huge swaths of information. Find better sources to support what you believe to be the truth and edit the sections. To pretend that these controversies about Gibbons do not exist is a slap in the face to Nevada voters... of which I am one.Kwpdb8 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly disturbing that you reverted my edits wholesale without even looking at what they were (just to be clear, you disregarded the majority of my edits and then tried to construe one or two sentences in my discussion addition in such a way that you could do a full revert). In no way did I delete 'vast swaths of information' and I even listed every on of my edits with the subsequent reasoning for why I replaced them with the content I did. You decided to not look at the edits, claim I erased major controversies (which I did not do--as every single major controversy including the Lemoille deal remains and still maintains the same tone), tried to use my native statehood as some type of dis-qualifier (despite the fact that my edits were not largely based on content specific knowledge) and then made a blanket revert under disingenuous auspices. If you had any intellectual reasoning for reverting everything you would have addressed my points instead of making false and blanket assumptions. I don't know how to contact mods, but I think that my edits and the fact that I gave a full set of reasons for every one of them and then the blanket and disingenuous reverts made by this commentator should be sufficient reason to at least examine activity on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.246.45 (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, aside from the fact the Kwpdb8's revert was disingenuous, I've made many of the same edits I made before but left the Yucca Mountain section that Kwpdb8 claims was so objectionable intact. Kwpdb8's criticism of my edits in that section reducing its 'encyclopedic nature' is pretty specious considering I simply consolidated 2 quotes from varying Nevada based sources regarding the decision into a 'despite the general opposition of Nevada media sources and politicians' summary and even left the quote by Senator Reid which made the exact point they did. In fact, there were no facts or details about the decision that I deleted and in that sense the part concerning Governor Gibbons' Yucca Mountain decision is still not very 'encyclopedic' so I'm surprised that Kwpdb8 was satisfied with it before. If Kwpdb8 again chooses to revert my current edits then there should be reasoning given to the specific edits I made as opposed to the general blanket accusations Kwpdb8 makes. I'll also again stress that nowhere in Kwpdb8's comment did Kwpdb8 ever specifically address the applicability of the criticisms she/he made to a single one of my edits.

Sorry, one more addition. With respect to the criticism that I 'cite sources' when made changes, Kwpdb8 can easily see that all of my changes that added new material were in fact cited (for example I cited the gallup approval rating for Gibbons in the popularity section and only took on the issues positions from the page already cited). I'm afraid that I'm not sure which other parts Kwpdb8 wants me to cite.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.246.45 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 

860 texts

Divorce proceedings were stayed upon agreement of living separately pending the suit. Dawn accused Jim of "infatuation and involvement with the wife of a Reno doctor,” but he stated, she is just a friend. On March-April 2007, he sent 860 text messages ($ 130) in one month to the woman.news.yahoo.com Paper: Nev. gov. sent 860 texts to woman in month--Florentino floro (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism re state budget section

There has apparently been an edit war (so far from Wiki policy that it can be characterized as vandalism) from April 11 - April 14, 2009 among users identified by four different ISPs. These users have been using the article space itself to debate issues which belong here, on the discussion page. They also made personal remarks to one another and did not cite sources for their contentions. Reviewing Wiki policies at WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), WP:NOR (no original research or personal editorializing), and WP:VERIFY (cite all facts to verifiable mainstream sources), as well as WP:GOODFAITH (reminding everyone to assume good intentions and act with good faith) will be helpful.

Finally, please also read WP:DISCUSSION about the proper use of these discussion pages. If you wish to discuss the state budget in general, email one another. Neither the article space nor this discussion space is appropriate for that kind of conversation. If you wish to discuss the best way to present neutral, factual, and well-cited material in the article, please use the "new section" tab at the top of this discussion page. Remember to always sign your discussion page remarks (even if you don't have a formal Wiki name) by typing in two hyphens and four tildes: -- ~~~~ The tilde is found on the key to the left of the numeral "1" on your keyboard. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)