Talk:Dino Rossi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] 1

This page is largely about the election of 2004, with dino himself discussed only at the bottom. probably best to break out a new page

Detailed chronology of the election is at Washington gubernatorial election, 2004; I see no need for it to be duplicated here and at Christine Gregoire. RadicalSubversiv E 23:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How is this acomplished?

his 2003 work in negotiating a budget deal which closed a budget shortfall without cutting most services or raising taxes.

How is this acomplished, if no revenue is raised and not cost is reduced? Through accounting gimmicks?
uhhh who knows. it is probably accounting gimmicks, decreasing investment and increasing borrowing. a lot of revenue goes towards government employee pension plans, a typical place where things can be manipulated without anyone feeling it for quite a while. other things, like repairs to roads, or investments in new roads, can also be delayed for years. traffic piles up but no one knows who to blame it on. if you layoff a few thousand teachers or raise gas tax by a nickel, people will notice it right away. 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the key word is most. This means that some services were cut but we don't know which ones or by how much. At the moment this is a bit of a weasel word that might make things sound better than they really are (or not). I found these two articles which I think apply to the budget in question: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/124652_specialsession02.html and http://news.theolympian.com/PalmNews/20030605/wirelessnews/21329.html
They say that most of the savings were made by freezing state employee pay with around 1000 job layoffs. I would suggest that the sentence be changed to:
Rossi was a relatively low-profile Senator until his 2003 work in negotiating a budget deal which closed a budget shortfall without raising taxes. The plan achieved broad support among both republicans and democrats although some were disappointed with the reduced funding for health care programs, lack of support for two education inititives, and the freezing of state employee pay [theolympian reference]. Slinky Puppet 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the "broad support" citable? It sounds like it was an unhappy compromise that squeaked by. Justforasecond 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure :) The vote passed 28-19 and got several democrats on side but in retrospect broad is too strong. Does 'support' need an adjective or is it happy enough living on its own? Slinky Puppet 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What is the source for "Rossi stated no interest in running for Governor in 2008"? Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed detail on 2004 election

I've removed the much of the detail about the 2004 election. -Justforasecond 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For what reason. Near as I can tell, your removal of this info borders on vandalism. The next time you want to remove so much info, at least let people know why you did it. This is common Wikipedia practice.--Alabamaboy 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This info is on the 2004 page, and the previous posters to this talk page asked that it be moved (as can be seen above). -Justforasecond 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Will run in 2008

Can someone confirm where Rossi has announced his bid in 2008. If not I am going to remove the sentence as it seems to be pure speculation at this time. I'm not saying he won't run, and I am almost certain that he will, but I follow this very closely and would probably be aware of any announcement.

  • Unless someone objects I am going to remove this. Not my leg 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Removed and reworded to state that if he runs, it will be for a first term. Not my leg 21:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Why even mention the filing for the 2008 governor election? At the very least it is in the wrong section. It isn't pertinent to the 2004 Governor's election and Rossi has not formally announced his 2008 candidacy at this time. If the 2008 governor election has to be mentioned in this article it's better placed in the first section in more speculative terms. Something like 'Rossi is widely expected to be a Republican candidate for the Washington gubernatorial election, 2008.'.
        • Agree. Removed, at least until there's something encyclopedic about his future actions. But to balance the deletions, I added some biographical stuff. It's not all about elections after all! rewinn 06:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to delete the paragraph: '"Rossi has been criticized for failing to take positions on several issues that impact the state's voters. In 2005, he failed to voice on an opinion on a 9.5 cent gas tax increase that was opposed by the state Republican party and in 2007 he has not provided a clear position on a multi-billiion dollar road and transit that has been put forward to Puget Sound area voters and declined to comment on a reauthorization bill for State Children's Health Insurance Program that was approved by Congress, but vetoed by President George W. Bush.[12][13]"'

The purpose is because in staying in line with the NPOV, this is very much polictically motivated since the people who are criticizing are the party he's running against. There is nothing on the wikepedia page of his opposing candidate about people being critical of her, even though there is plenty of criticizm. I think having the article be more about who he is, instead of talking about people being critical on whether or not he has commented is much more in line with being NPOV.--usesomelogic 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to add properly sourced criticism of Christine Gregoire to her article, matter of fact, it is encouraged. As for the criticism of Dino Rossi here, it's being made by the political correspondents for the Seattle PI and Seattle Time, so not sure where you are getting that it is politically motivated. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's simple, if this is supposed to be NPOV then why would someone post a critisizm unless it were to attempt to smear someone's name? Columnist critisize everyone and everything, that's kind of what they do for a living. Considering the election coming up in 2008, I don't think it's right to post things like this. I could go to Chris Gregoire's paige and post the article form the Columbian about how she's failing to help families in Clark County identify facilities and providers who have retained their license despite health and safety violations. But I won't do that because it's really not NPOV, considering it is coming up on election year.--usesomelogic 04:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usesomelogic (talk • contribs)

Usesomelogic, please remember to end your comments in (~~~~). Sinebot does not always catch unsigned comments and does not include a date and time stamp. But on to your concerns, NPOV does not mean No Point of View, it means Neutral Point of View. This means that the article is supposed to show all points of view without bias, this include negative POVs, positive POVs, and otherwise. The part that you are trying to remove is reliably sourced (see WP:RS) and (in my opinion) as neutrally worded as it can be. It is also supported by multiple reliable sources, so undue weight (see WP:UNDUE and biographies of living peoples (see WP:BLP]] concerns are addressed. I could attribute (see WP:ATT) the sentence if you would like, but Rossi's not taking a position on key issues is documented in a number of reliable sources, so it is more a general criticism for him rather than a specifically attributable one. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scandal involving this page

Interesting article in the Seattle Times today about the misinformation placed on Dino's Wikipedia page (as well as several others) by Gregoire's former campaign spokesman. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002958137_campaign28m.html ---above anonymous contribution on 29 April 2006 by user:Coz 11

Actually, the SeaTimes article says nothing about misinformation. It says:
"In Rossi's case, the changes came more than a year after the election.
"The most significant change was the inclusion of this paragraph:
"During the 2004 election, Rossi portrayed himself as moderate Republican. However, he was stung throughout the campaign by a Seattle Times exposé which implicated him in questionable business practices. He was also hurt when it was revealed that he had exaggerated his business credentials. Finally, a series of articles in different papers documented that many of his biographical claims were untrue."
It is not clear which of the above is misinformation. And, of course, because the edits occured a year after the campaign, they could not have affected the campaign's outcome. rewinn 06:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 campaign

Is it really known if he is working on his 2008 campaign as it says at the very beginning of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

It's not confirmed, by due to the closeness of his defeat, he's the most likely candidate. But considering the paragraph about his "2008 Campaign" was deleted, no reason to include reference of it in the intro. --Bobblehead 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest on Rossi

Does anyone have enough info to write something on Rossi's latest venture? http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/04/10/100loc_a1sox001.cfm Gnarlyone 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dinorossi.JPG

Image:Dinorossi.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I was given a message about uploading Rossi's picture, but I am not the one who uploaded it, and although I do share an IP with someone, the other person who uses wikipedia on my IP I know did not upload it, he doesnt have any images, and doesnt even know how to use a scanner. Crd721 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section removals

Discussion about this removal moved from my talk page
I have no idea how to use this thing, or how to communicate, but will try my best here.....what I have done is simply taken out a paragraph on Dino Rossi that seems to be politically motivated. With an election year coming up, talking about how a candidate has been "criticized", when the people who are criticizing him are from the party he is running against, is not staying in the NPOV guidelines. If you look at the person who he is going against there is nothing there about what people are critisizing her for. I can understand taking out someof my political rants, but in this case I'm just trying to keep it in line with what your guilines state NPOV. Please let me know if this works. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usesomelogic (talk • contribs)

It seems like the criticism is sourced to a columnist in one of Seattle's two major daily papers. While it is reasonable to guess he is being criticized on the same points by partisans (and that the columnist himself has specific views). NPOV does not forbid the inclusion of criticism from partisan sources either, so long as they are well sourced. We certainly report on major controversies of a campaign. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These issues were both brought out before he made his announcement to run for Governor. David Postman was basically bring up points of what he was hoping to hear from Rossi. Since he has just started his campaign, bringing these points out are irrelevant. If you allow critisizm from every columnist on issues, it would defeat the purpose of having an "encyclopedia" based web site. The encycolpedia should talk about relevant facts of a person, not what some columnist decided would be issues if he shose to run again for governor.--usesomelogic 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Read Postman's article again. Rossi was asked at his announcement press conference about his stance on SCHIP and the Roads and Transit Proposition and ducked the questions. He also ducked questions about his stance on the 9.5 cent gas tax that was on the ballot last year. Postman's article is clearly about how Rossi (and Gregoire) have missed opportunities to explain their positions on important issues. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If every article written critisizing a politician was posted in Wikepedia, wouldn't that be a little reduntant? Plus if he is being critical of Rossi AND Gregoire, then why does this only appear on his page? I just think that in keeping with a nuetral point of view (Oxford English Dictionary on the word "neutral": 1 impartial or unbiased. 2 having no strongly marked characteristics), this seems to be strongly marking a characteristic. If this were neutral then perhaps the sentance should read "critical of both Rossi AND Gregoire"? Wouldn't that be much more neutral?--usesomelogic 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usesomelogic (talk • contribs)

This article is about Dino Rossi so it would not be appropriate to include criticism of Christine Gregoire in this article. But just to repeat again, negative information about the subject of an article is acceptable as long as it is properly sourced and as neutrally worded as possible. Additionally, complaining about the lack of criticism on Gregoire's page on the talk page for Rossi's article is not going to get negative information added to Gregoire's page. If you have a concern about missing information on Gregoire's page, I suggest you take it to Talk:Christine Gregoire or add the information yourself. NPOV does not necessarily apply across multiple articles and the addition of information to one article is not predicated upon addition of other information to another article. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, every criticism of someone should not be included (check out the policy itself for how it is used on Wikipedia. What seems to be at issue is undue weight (which has a section on the policy page). To my read, this criticism, which appeared in a major newspaper, is a reasonable one (and if it is also widely made by his opponents, then even more so). If that is not the issue at stake, what is more notable criticism? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Improving business environment"

I've gone ahead and removed the following because the addition of it seems to be a violation of WP:SYN, in that by adding it the user seems to be implying that Washington's business environment is already improved and that Rossi is saying the state is currently not trying to improve the business environment. #5 in the country is not #1, so there is still room for improvement and Rossi is not making a claim that he will improve the state's ranking in comparison to other states, just that he'll improve the business environment.

“ even though Washington was ranked fifth in Forbes.com's second annual Top States for Business. Forbes.com stated: "Washington is the big story. The biggest mover (tied with Tennessee), rising from 12th to fifth place, Washington is also the only state to finish in the top five in three main categories (labor, regulatory environment and growth)." ”

So unless someone comes up with an argument why the above should be included, I'm thinking it should be left out. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you removed this information because you're pro-Rossi and used some tortured logic in the process. The point is this: the business climate has improved since Gregoire took office. The state went from 12th to 5th place, which is a big jump. "Still room for improvement"? Please... if Rossi thinks this is going to help him get elected he's in real trouble. The business leaders in Washington will maintain the status quo, whether you like it or not.
But for the sake of argument, what do you think Rossi will do to "improve" the business environment in this stake over what is happening now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.75.4 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I've been accused of being pro-Rossi and anti-Rossi in the span of a week, nice. But anywho, please read up on WP:SYN. Just because Forbes says Washington's rank in the Top States has jumped from 12th to 5th does not mean that it can be used to draw a conclusion in regards to Rossi's goal. You will need to provide a reliable source that draws the conclusion before you can include it here. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)