Talk:Martin O'Malley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Martin O'Malley is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Just a user doing some research on mayoral politics... I saw that someone has edited this so that O'Malley's arrest for DUI is mentioned over a dozen times in all kinds of inappropriate places. Probably not what you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.186.77 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WARNING

Wikipedia is NOT a political billboard or a venue for political advertising. Those who come here to modify articles to support or denounce candidates face the very real possibility that any future modifications under the same user name or TCP/IP address will be immediately suspect and immediately reverted into non-existence. This by the community at large as is as it should be.

This is an encyclopedia; not a forum for political activism. Be aware! Wjbean 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check

Apparently, the people who turned Robert Ehrlich's article into something resembling his campaign flyer have done the opposite to this article. Like that one, this article needs to be rewritten with an eye for NPOV. 70.111.10.89 07:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, this article is completely out of control. Somebody spent literally hours making this entire page into an attack ad against O'Malley. I don't know beans about O'Malley's actual record, nor do I have an opinion about the man, but this is an extremely poor source of reliable information as it currently stands. 4:12, December 6, 2005.
This Definitely needs to be checked. Someone needs to fix this article, all of his positive work as mayor has been deleted and the only accomplisment it now lists is an increase in rape and other violent crime, very disappointing.
Agreed. In the past, I have removed pointlessly inflammatory adjectives and terms used in this article. (e.g. The section labeled "Relations" was first called "Nepotism" by the anonymous character assassin while no evidence of nepotism was cited in the section. Perhaps the definition of the word should have been checked before keyboard was applied to screen.) Some toady for his competitor keeps junking it up with editorials by unnamed sources he likes to call "prominent", and "reliable" without saying who they were. I kept the quotes attributed to his opponent's campaign manager as I felt the readers could take such quotes with the grain of salt they deserved. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.231.88.4 (talk • contribs) .
I'm not too farmiliar with the details of Maryland politics, but this article is deffinatly highly biased againts Mr. O'Malley. Generic69 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the overall POV tag and replaced it with a section-tag under "schools", since it seems to me that most of the POV is concentrated there. I've also split the "schools" section into more manageable pieces. --tomf688{talk} 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this has been allowed to stand - this diatribe against O'Malley with references to unnamed sources. This is shameful.

[edit] More POV

A usaer a couple of days ago, more then likely from mdpoliticsnow, put in the blurb in BettyJean Murphy and the sale of property, i removed it on the idea that the source for the informtaion is far from a reptiabule source aming other things i will getinto here. First of the issuing of the grant was in 1995, during the Schmoke adminstration well prior to the O'Malley adminstration coing into office, or him running for the mayors office, according to the "source" link, the fist donation came in 1999, which would have been when he was first running for mayor, 4 years after the grant was issued. So if it four years after the grant how can his adminstration be tied to it? Also Murphy was issued a CDBG, a federal program, when the grant is issued their is basicaly a contrat that is signed that states what exatly the money can be used for and any pentailties incoured if the money is not used in that way, but the city has no say in if and who the propert is sold to after the grant is issued. Nor is this an issue, Murphy sold the poperty. The issue is how much does murphy repay the city, the terms of the contrat as i haave so far interpereted it, i have not seen the contrat, seem to be that of sold for profit then the grant money must be paied back to the city, which is the plan according to lawyer for Murphy. The main issues with that money is that six weeks after the sale, Murphy had yet to repay, thust jepordising her ability to get addation grants, and that the city, which would be the O'Malley adminstration, is contending that she also pay the reaminer of the profit from the sale, $932,000. SO if this is such a scandle why is the city making the issue out of this, would that work aginst the idea that this is a "scandel". Also their are issue with the source, the source has no source for the donations, so we cant say they are valad or not, also they missquote, or i should say selctively quote, from The Sun, for their second quote:

mdpoliticsnow:"Through the years, Murphy has won city land deals and claimed tax subsidies worth millions…despite her steady contributions to Mayor O’Malley…"

sun:"Through the years, Murphy has won city land deals and claimed tax subsidies worth millions, building her career on a foundation of public projects."

"But if Murphy doesn't pay, she might have more than a cold shoulder from the housing department to worry about. Her deals pending with the Baltimore Development Corp. are in jeopardy and, officials say, despite her steady campaign contributions to Mayor Martin O'Malley, she might never sit at the city deal table again."

these two quotes are several paragraphs apart. I dont mind their being a critical section, but if your going to put one in at least get the facts straight and try to rely on a source more repitabule then mdpoliticsnow. This is far from a scandel and is hardly worth mentioning, and if on one objects i am going to remove it by sunday, as it could be considered lible. For the article from the sun consering the sale, see here and here --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did anyone read the link of mdpoliticsnow? It appears to be linking to major news media outlets' stories and to the Maryland campaign donations webpage (non-partisanly run by the state of Maryland). This is certainly a fair discussion to bring up as the Baltimore Sun brought it up last summer. Mdpolitico | User talk:Mdpolitico

Yeah i did, matter of fact i also caught at initial article in the paper before it showed up here. The real question should be is did mdpoliticsnow read the articles in whole, or just the portion that they misquoted. Also they only have the information posted from the cite, they have no link to the site nor do they attributibue where they recived the campaing finiance information, or the quotes with the exception of the imbedded link for the quotes only. Also how could this issue in any way been discussed last summer if it only just recently happend, or action has been taken on it i should say, it never even happend last summer, the sale was six months ago, also the two accompaning links are about other issues not this specific issue. Come on if you going to tr to start a scandle at least get your issues straight. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Boothy, thanks for the research. Always glad to work with you and others in trying to bring some sanity to the various Baltimore/Maryland pages. Please do go ahead and act as you outlined; your research was excellent and everything well-reasoned. MDPolitico, whoever you are, I welcome your constructive contributions to this site but not random, poorly-written, uncited, heavily POV insertions which do not fit into the context of the article. Also, it is considered polite to add your "signature" to the bottom of your postings on this page, so please do so in the future.--Apostlemep12 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not like their was a lot of research to be done, one only has to look at the two artciles in question. And so i am behund in what i siad i was going to do, yeah i am going to pull it today. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I only just skimmed this article and I can already tell that it is blatantly biased, as we've already discussed. It looks like a negative campaign ad for O'Malley. I mean, it looks like someone just went to Ehrlich's campaign site and cut 'n' pasted Ehrlich's take on O'Malley. The section regarding O'Malley's tenure as Mayor of Baltimore looks like it needs the most work. It just repeatedly states, "O'Malley promised this, but he failed miserably. O'Malley wrecked Baltimore." I have my own strong political convictions, but I do not smear them all over Wikipedia. Political vandalism like this is immature, and nobody will listen to propaganda. Whoever the vandal is, you need to keep your political views to yourself, so we can all work towards something much more important: the free sharing of information. When teachers refuse to accept Wikipedia as a valid source for papers, vandalism such as this is at least partially to blame. Boothy443, thanks for your work toward restoring order to this article. If you need someone to do some more research or something, I'm always happy to help. --Peteweez 04:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Biased would correct, basiclay this article as is the case with most articles of a political nature are. Any way what got me was that the source was a blog, which are not noted to be the most reliable sources of unbiased information espically this one, and that the way that it went about it's deleiver was just as biased, slective quoting, you can get anyone to say what you want if you quote them in a slective manner. If it was such a bigg issue when didnt they just directly source the two articles in the article, except for the fact that it would not support their claims. But this is what you get when you have a cite that has open editing, no realy editing review, and what editing review it does have is really low. However, thanks for the comments, i would say if you can help then do so. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been checking both this page and Robert Erlich's since a month before the recent elections, and I have to say that this page is much more blatantly pro-O'Malley than it is against. More coverage of his scandals and failures need to be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Controvery"

The third paragraph of this section, about the DUI arrest, reads as slanted, and is essentially unsourced. The cited articles discuss the arrest and a "not guilty" finding (not dismissal by a judge, as stated in the text). The cited articles make no reference to any controversy about the bar application. Bassomatic 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The case was dismissed after O'Malley pleaded not guilty. I added another source citation. --Adavidb 05:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the controversy section also include his impregnating a black TV reporter and her mysterious hit and run accident in New York?

If any reliable source reference citations.... --Adavidb 12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Side

Has anyone compared the length of, and information given in the articles about the two candidates for the democratic nomination? O'Malley's is FAR more detailed, mentions almost every single one of his accomplishments, and only dedicates a few sentences to discussing the scandals that he, and the city of Baltimore, have been involved in.

Duncan's article mentions NONE of the many positive things he has done as both county Executive and Mayor, and focuses entirely on the few allegations that have been made against him in the past week WEEKS. This site is really a joke if you are trying to do anything more than historical researcb. The admins are bias, and every politician's page is just a battle between those supporting them, those opposing them, and the admin.

Can't Wikipedia get someone who actually knows what they are talking about and is indifferent about the gubernatorial race to write the articles? Also, I think that they should all naturally be the same length originally if you have any interest in being balanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmbarr (talk • contribs) at 05:50, June 12, 2006.

There isn't a conspiracy against Duncan. One user, named Noitall, considerably expanded O'Malley's bio a few months ago (see the edit history). No one has taken the time to do this for Duncan. Several people have added cut-and-paste materials from Duncan's campaign website, which has promptly been reverted for copyright reasons. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prunings

I was about to revert the edits of the anon who was removing considerable amounts of content, but, after reading some of it in more depth, I realized that most of this was poorly-sourced and heavily anti-O'Malley. Per WP:BLP, I have added a lot of (citation needed) tags and have kept much of the deletions made by the anon in place. I have also removed the POV tag in hopes that POV concerns have been resolved. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very new to Wikipedia (i.e. my first post) but it seems that a lot of factual encyclopdic data on O'Malley was deleted for uncited wrong information. One example being that Baltimore was second to last in education being changed to O'Malley improved education. EDIT: Nevermind, that was quoted later in the article. But I still feel the O'Malley has improved education directly contradicts the cited information.TheCommodore7 04:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Adjustment

Really people, Wiki is not supposed to be used for campaigning.

Although much of both this article and Ehrich's seems to be influenced heavily by the current election (from both sides), I only changed one thing that was just ridiculous:

The line at the end (using an opinion column as the source) read something like "His ads contained downright lies" I changed to be less bias by simply saying he has "come under criticism" for "negative campaign ads."

If I had time or the knowledge, I would redo both O'Malley's and Ehrlich's completely...or better yet just delete them both because every time I look at them they are slanted in a new direction. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Look at the ".org" on the URL. I say again, this is not supposed to be a political website!!!

[edit] I'd welcome discussion or review of my edits...

...since I'm a new Wikipedian. I've tried to add in sources, remove obviously unsourced material, and also removed some unsourced non-sequitars that seemed biased. Thanks. Orbicular 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What happened to the old picture?

Can we go back to the one where he doesn't look like Terry Schiavo? -Taco325i 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am currently seeking permission from the State of Maryland to use his official state portrait. Irteagle102704 01:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That may not be acceptable. The state still retains extensive restrictions on its publications, including official photos, and if it can't be used beyond Wikipedia, it therefore can't be used here at all. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You could hide in the bushes in front of his house in the morning, and snap a candid when he comes out to get his paper. -Taco325i 03:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how the State of Maryland replies to my request, I know Delaware granted permission to use their Governor's official photo on her Wikipedia page, so I hope Maryland will say the same... Irteagle102704 05:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, due to the current lack of a picture, I will post one that I took of him at his inauguration, until a better one is found... Irteagle102704 05:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the photo, irt. It will probably end up having to be these types of photos we have to use (or if O'Malley were to be photographed by the federal government at an event, like Ehrlich's). I emailed the state a long time ago and, while the Archives said I could use the images, I don't think they mean beyond Wikipedia or for commercial purposes. The state itself is quite adamant about its copyright, as you can see at the Maryland Governor's site: "All information on this site is property of the State of Maryland. No one is authorized to reuse any part of this site without written consent. Please contact the Web Development Team if you have any questions." That pretty much means Wikipedia cannot use their official portraits. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the footnotes?

All of the footnotes -- [1], [2], etc -- are missing; the links go to anchors on the page, but the anchors (and the entire reference section) is gone... Fmanjoo 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that the O'Malley page ever used footnotes and a Reference section to cite sources. Instead, it continues to use embedded HTML links. See How to cite sources. --Adavidb 20:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, however I do see some footnotes within the article, without a footnotes section to display them. I'll add a References section to allow migration to that style. ==Adavidb 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder statistics

User:Taco325i edited the article and replaced Murder with Homicide. This has made those crime statistics invalid. -- Cameron Dewe 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need a picture

Seems odd that Elijah Cummings has one and the Governor doesn't.

68.49.1.207 11:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O'Malley not the inspiration for Tommy Carcetti character

Seems like there is some (wishful) thinking that the Tommy Carcetti character on "The Wire" was inspired by Martin O'Malley. I immediately questioned this assumption, as I always saw much of the fictional Clarance Royce mayo character on "The Wire" to be partly influenced by O'Malley, as the questions of the legitimacy of the crime statistics from Royce's "ComStat" paralleled the controversies surrounding O'Malley's "CitiStat"; Further internet research revealed an interview with "The Wire" creator David Simon, where he is quoted as saying that Carcetti is not O'Malley, but that O'Malley was one of several inspirations. I have edited the article to relect this, and have sourced the David Simon interview. --Goosedoggy 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually David Simon's has since admitted that O'Malley WAS the inspiration for Carcetti as the final season of the Wire winds down tomorrow. Double check that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.85.118 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crime Rate

Why does the article claim NYC has the lowest crime rate of large American cities, when the reference article is titled San Jose Remains Safest City? The article places NYC as the 5th lowest crime rate. The other crime statistic list has San Jose ranked as Safer than NYC. Since San Jose has a larger population than Baltimore, it makes logical sense that any crime comparison should include such like sized cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.45.65 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Term as governor

This entire section is filled with POV and unsubstantiated statements. For example, the entire section about the proposed tax increases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.39.219 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made various updates to the section and removed its POV banner. If someone decides to restore the banner, please be more specific here about what changes are sought. —Adavidb 03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a real Wikipedian, nor am I a partisan in Maryland political battles (I first stumbled across this article while reading up on the Wire and David Simon, and I live on the West Coast of Canada), so pardon any errors of policy or propriety I make. I believe that the last few sentences of the "Term as Governor" section may contravene Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, spelling and grammar. The comments about "Democrates" holding a metaphorical gun to the head of Marylanders, for example, or the lack of "benifit" to the middle class from a tax increase. I also believe adding the "Thanks Marty" sign-off to the tax increase discussion is inappropriate and adolescent. 208.181.199.108 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits such as these you described have been reverted by me and others. —Adavidb 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

These sentences should also be reworded for POV (emphasis mine).

The plan would raise total state tax collections 14%[34] yet supposedly only 17% of the population would pay higher taxes. A Maryland Senate panel has modified the tax proposal, making it even more costly to taxpayers.[35][36]

--67.81.39.219 (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying your concerns. I removed the rest of the one sentence after '14%'. The other sentence now includes a direct quote from one of its two sources. —Adavidb 07:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)