Talk:Mike Rounds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Why do people keep editing out the fact that the poll cited about South Dakotan support of the abortion ban was commissioned by a pro-abortion group?
It seems that some people would like the truth to be hidden. But then again the abortion movement is based on lies.
I am not sure what you are talking about - that fact was added to the article, and has not been removed at all. I did rewrite a portion of that section, but the fact that the poll was commissioned by a group opposing the abortion ban is still in there.
+ Also, the fact that you use terms like "pro-abortion" clearly shows your bias, and wikipedia is not freerepublic - this is for NPOV information, so feel free to post your conservative rant elsewhere.
[edit] Mike Rounds for President in '08?
Might he run for president? In '08 he'll have 5 years as governor under his belt. Not too shabby. Being the #1 rated governor in the whole country doesn't hurt either.
[edit] Polarizing
And with his signing of the sweeping abortion ban, he's extremely polarizing, even within the Republican party. The Rebublican's can run him as their candidate if they want. It will just surely be the end of their theocratic reign...
[edit] But...
I don't think Rounds will run for President, but I think it is clear from his statements that he was not entirely comfortable with the bill that he signed. I would say that he will in many ways be similar to Howard Dean, a popular small-state governor who signed a bill (allowing civil unions) with which he was not entirely pleased. Dean managed to run a high-profile campaign for President without the civil unions bill becoming an issue, because voters were willing to look past that. Rounds could be in a similar situation - he is actually more popular than Dean was, and is governor of a larger state (both in terms of area and population). And, in my opinion, Rounds' personality is far less polarizing than Dean's - rather than harsh and abrasive, he is a soft-spoken conciliator. (Again showing why he was not terribly comfortable with the abortion approach the ban embraced).
[edit] President???
Get real - Rounds will never run for President - he wouldn't stand a chance. Maybe once he actually starts to get something done instead of playing flyboy with the state aircraft he will have some sort of accomplishment to report - but right now the only thing on his resume after being Governor for 4 years is his signing of the abortion ban, which clearly is outside of the mainstream everywhere except the most right leaning regressive thinking regions of South Dakota.
Whats next for Rounds? Banning all gays to North Dakota?
[edit] Argus Leader distillery story
I removed the new section that was added about Rounds' brothers plans to build a distillery in Pierre. I did this for three reasons: 1) It was the first section in the article, placed ahead of even the "personal" section, obviously out of place; 2) It goes into great detail about one rather insignificant occurence in his administration - unless the entire article is expanded, it seems odd to highlight this bill; and 3) The paragraph was not objectively written and was obvioiusly an attempt to create the appearance of scandal where there is none. It said that Rounds signed the bill, and shortly thereafter his brothers announced that they had bought a building to open a distillery. What it does not say is that the Rounds brothers lobbied for the legislation and told the legislators that they wanted this legislation so that they could open small-scale distillery - the legislation created differential licensing rates for different sizes of distilleries.
(I would note that someone erased my entry and added the paragraph back on the main article. I would hope that you would have the courage to defend your views, rather than simply erasing mine.)
One will note that the person who added this paragraph was doing maintenance on the Jack Billion page the same day. (Billion is Rounds' opponent this fall). I think this is pretty transparent.
+ I would add that the section depends heavily on an opinion piece in a local newspaper--hardly encyclopedic. -jaredwiki
Jaredwiki-
Please adhere to the spirit of wikipedia. It is not proper to wholly delete cited information unless it is blatantly biased. In this case, however, the author of this particular section does cite a newspaper piece from the Argus Leader. If you dispute the cited facts in the Argus story then perhaps you could contribute to Wikipedia by properly citing information to the contrary thus adding to the community of information. I have personally added further citations to help appease your concerns. Of course if anyone has additional verifiable information on this topic then you should contribute. Deletion due just to differing opinion is tantamount to vandalism.
~Checkmate15
I have changed the section on the distilleries legislation to be more encyclopedic in nature. It lays out all the facts, including those sources originally included, without taking a side. I still believe that this story is sort of an odd choice to include in the article, but if it is going to be included it should be done in a fair and factual way. And by the way, I disagree that erasing cited material is always vandalism. I did not erase the paragraph because of a differing opinion. I erased it because, given the relatively short nature of the article, it seemed that it was unnecessary to include the section - certainly at the top of the article. Wikipedia is the place for facts - not opinions of any sort. ~Unknown
Regarding: "Ethically confused - again For lawmakers, high moral ground doesn't include the Rounds' booze business" It is curious that you would remove the link to this story which may possibly hinder efforts of those who may wish to view and judge such published information for themselves. While I am not suggesting that you cite "Wikipedia is the place for facts - not opinions of any sort" to veil your creative manipulation of newspaper articles, I do suggest that you, at the very least, refrain from deleting links to information that is directly discussed in the article. To address your musunderstanding of my words, I do believe, as do many on wikipedia, that erasing properly cited infomation merely due to personal conviction is vandalism. Such act go against the very purpose of such a community of knowledge. Also, please sign your statements. Please do not take my statements personally, I only wish to contribute to wikipedia. ~Checkmate15
I would just apologize for erasing the link to the Argus Leader page - that was a mistake I made while editing the article. I still disagree with your characterization of vandalism - while it is inappropriate to erase cited information because of personal conviction. However, it is not vandalism to erase information if one feels that it need not be part of the article. For example, if someone added a paragraph detailing what Mike Rounds watched for television last night, and included a source, I would erase it because it is not relevant to the article. That is an extreme example, but the same thought applies here. Given that there is practically no detailed account of his administration, I didn't think this bill was particularly significant. After you objected I changed my mind and included it, albeit in the appropriate section.
I would also note that I changed back the order of the two paragraphs. It makes far more sense to start the section by giving the facts relating to the bill, and then the Argus Leader story. The editorial is not the important part of the section - the facts themselves are important. In addition, I moved the section back under "administration," which is where it belongs. This allows there to be fewer headings, which is more appropriate for an article of this length.
[edit] Current Event?
With the hospitalization of Sen. Tim Johnson and Rounds' ability to appoint a replacement should one be needed, would a current event tag be appropriate for this article? Tommy11111 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Well, maybe its just me.
But somehow I am curiously unable to find any sort of official literature to support the following statement:
"During the campaign, Abbott, who had been considered the Democratic Party's strongest nominee in years, was hampered by his strategic inability to attack Rounds; any effort to "go negative" would have only reinforced Rounds' positive campaign."
This sounds like propaganda. Hmm.--AvacadoPlatypus 11:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
