Talk:Mitch Daniels

Inaccuracies and tangents

In an attempt to avoid an editing war, I wanted to add more specificity to the changes I am about to put back in place. First, there is no evidence that Purdue Global is losing money, not even in the biased opinion piece cited. The record clearly shows that Purdue Global has many millions of dollars of cash on hand. With that cash, they have chosen to make a major marketing investment to build awareness about their school, and enrollment is increasing. Saying that's losing money is like saying I am losing money because I took cash out of my savings account to pay for a house. Second, the claim that the CFO says it will continue to lose money is entirely false. He said last year that they would continue to have an enhanced marketing spend for one more year (2019). The latest statements are that that investment will end and the online university will have a surplus in 2020 . Third, the claim that Purdue Global has been criticized by former education officials also is inaccurate. In fact, the acquisition has been praised by Secretary Arne Duncan and undersecretary Ted Mitchell (who led Obama's crackdown on for profit universities). There is one not credible, low-ranking former education official who has criticized it and that is Bob Shireman, who was investigated for conspiring with short sellers. Finally, this level of detail seems superfluous in an article about Mitch Daniels. I'm fine with documenting these issues on the Purdue Global article but in this location, it feels like a tangent and an attempt to make a political personal attack. JA1776 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edit here reads at face value to be motivated against a neutral perspective, leading me to wonder, what is your relationship with the University System JA1776? You removed two+ sources which indicated operational loss, including a primary source. Neither 'cash on hand', nor marketing 'investment' change the definition of operational loss.

You noted praise from an education undersecretary Mitchell, while arguing exclusion of criticism Shireman who was the deputy undersecretary of education. Unless you are attached value to the person and their comments, each should be included.

The level of detail offered by the editor is consistent with other status and result narrative included in other agenda items on the page. If they are not material, the agenda section should be removed. (1sheropen (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC))

A reminder for user JC1776, NPOV: "Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and censorship seriously undermines that goal. NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is our most sacred policy, yet its use of the word "neutral" is constantly misunderstood by editors and visitors who feel that NPOV occupies some sort of "No Point Of View" middle ground between biased points of view. Points of view and criticisms are by nature not neutral, and all types of biased points of view must be documented, often using biased sources, so the resulting content should not be neutral or free of bias." (1sheropen (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC))

1sheropen I see you are new to Wikipedia with your first edits made just a couple of days ago and on two articles to date. Welcome. Editing Wikipedia has been a hobby of mine off and on for close to 15 years and I hope you find it an enjoyable distraction, as I do. The articles I've worked to shape the most align with my passions: Roman history and all things Purdue related. You make some good points about including more than typical encyclopedias and no one would dispute this article doesn't do that. But I do think there is a balance with keeping things readable. For example, on the question of "significant criticism and praise", we could list out every person who has ever said anything positive or negative about Purdue Global but I think that would be a disservice to the reader, especially when this is an article about Mitch Daniels? Could we agree to find the best single link for praise and the best single for criticism and keep it at that? I think it would strengthen this particular article.JA1776 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome JA1776, and your comments. After removing content over a few edits without responding here I worried you did not see the comments. First, the comment on including more information, not less, is not my belief, but guidance provided to editors by Wikipedia. Respectfully, I have to disagree with your stance on exclusion of information. Each of the other agenda items includes details of their produced outcomes. 1 - “ Under Daniels leadership, Purdue increased the number of affiliated start-up companies by more than 400 percent and broke the university record for patents.” 2- “The high school did not open until 2017, but Purdue reported record levels of minority and underrepresented students in the Fall 2016 semester.” 3 - “one of roughly two dozen universities to receive the highest rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.”

The acquisition and conversation of Kaplan University from a for-profit to public benefit corporation within a public university system is a bold and unorthodox move, for which Daniels is known. The article provides an overview of his career and for those reasons, I would argue for the inclusion of the notable criticism. (1sheropen (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC))

Although my preference would be to just let the links speak for themselves, I attempted to expand this in a way that would show the types of people supporting and opposing on both sides. I suspect 1sheropen may object to the inclusion of Robert Shireman's history but this is well-documented and vital part of his record that readers should know when judging his credibility. Hopefully this will end the back and forth.JA1776 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea @JA1776, I've updated to include perspectives of Purdue Faculty and notable US Senators who provided comment. I dont object to providing links to background on Shireman, though he is well known in the industry, and was cleared in a IG investigation on the matter. I'll add that information with the source at a later date (1sheropen (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC))

References

Purdue Faculty Senate

The statement added by JA1776 today about Purdue Global reads "the University Senate leadership has appeared less concerned, as the new entity has received support from the body's current elected leaders."

The article cited by includes the following quotes which directly contradict the text included in the edit:

• "Matters are less settled for many professors at the main campus in West Lafayette, Ind."
• "Purdue could have been more transparent during the acquisition of Kaplan, and it could be more transparent about Purdue Global now, says Cheryl Cooky, an associate professor of American studies and gender and sexuality studies and the chair of the University Senate. While the Senate convened a special committee to serve as a conduit for questions and answers between professors and administrators regarding the project, Purdue and Purdue Global could both benefit from more “open channels of exchange,” she says."
• "Even Cooky, who is supportive of Purdue Global, has qualms about the secrecy with which the deal was struck, and how professors were kept out of the loop: “Faculty can sign nondisclosure [agreements] as well.”"*
• "“Academia, like most businesses, is a copycat business,” says Mullen. There are so many unresolved questions swirling around Purdue Global “that a lot of us are concerned that this model will be replicated” elsewhere with even less vetting."

Given this new statement is not supported by the source, I will remove, unless there is objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1sheropen (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

These are fair observations and I appreciate the chance to discuss on a talk page rather than via edit battle. My viewpoint is to keep the article focused on Mitch Daniels by simply saying that Purdue Global has been controversial with supporters and detractors, add some links, including one to the PG wikipedia entry in case the reader wants more and call it good. But I know 1sheropen does not share that viewpoint so here we are. If we are going to include the immediate reactions from the university senate after the announcement, then I think a current article should include the fact that the senate seems to have moderated since then. There are various evidences to support this statement:

• There are two elected leaders of the university senate and both are supporters (though with some reservations as 1sheropen has pointed out.) One is Cheryl Cooky, who, as the source makes clear, "is supportive of Purdue Global" and the other is the vice chair, Deborah Nichols who, according to the source "sees potential for the university to reach more students." While statements like that would have been unthinkable by an elected leader of the university senate a few years ago, 1sheropen is correct to point out that this support was not without some concerns. Cooky's reservations appear to be lingering anger about the lack of senate involvement in the creation of Purdue Global rather than the university's existence or operations.
• The faculty member Mullen cited by 1sheropen is not an elected leader of the senate, nor is he even on the university senate. This distinction matters because the claim is not that the faculty have moderated, though there probably is some evidence of that that could be found. The deleted edit is about the elected leadership of the senate.
• The Purdue Administration also has argued"University Senate is in a much different place than it was a few years ago... Over the last year, the Senate declined to take up a resolution critical of Purdue Global. A special ad hoc committee established by University Senate to study a variety of issues related to Purdue Global has effectively disbanded after concluding that any concerns had been addressed." From what I can find on the Senate's minutes and elsewhere, both statements appear true.

The deleted statement read, "In more recent years, the University Senate leadership has appeared less concerned, as the new entity has received support from the body's current elected leaders." I don't see anything in this statement that is not supported by the source. However, I do recognize 1sheropen's point that that support is not without some caveats. To those concerns, unless there are objections from the community, I am going to restore the language but add some modifiers to the description of "support" in order to make it clear that was not without some complaints.JA1776 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to address the comments above @JA1776. The Faculty Senate is the governing body of the Purdue Faculty, and faculty senate members represent faculty. Mullen, who is a faculty member, was quoted in the article you cited, which I why I included in above.

In the time after the announcement the Faculty Senate showed great interest in Global, and created a select committee for the purpose of monitoring it's operations and reporting on the matter. Further, the Co-chair of the Select Committee on Purdue Global is the current elected Vice-Chair of the Faculty Senate.

Citing the Purdue administration public relations statements on expressing how Purdue faculty view Global smacks with bias. The quote includes "effectively disbanded", however the select committee is still in place, and it's members still active.

Let's focus on the question at hand, is the following statement true: "In more recent years, the University Senate leadership has appeared less concerned, as the new entity has received support from the body's current elected leaders—though they continue to object to not having been involved in the creation of the new university." Consider the evidence: The two elected representatives of the university senate support the university and believe the university will benefit the Purdue and they have told this to the Chronicle of Higher Education. At the same time, they continued to complain about how the deal was struck. This is well documented in the source and is enough to justify the revision I am about to restore. My point in citing the university's statement was not that that was sufficient evidence on its own, but rather a claim to test against. And in fact, there is no evidence that anyone in the senate objected to the university's well publicized claims or called them false. To the contrary, there is corroborating evidence in the university minutes that for the first time since the deal was announced, there are no longer updates from the committee or actions in opposition to Purdue Global.JA1776 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear, if no party disputes a statement made by a PR professional, it's deemed to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1sheropen (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's also supported by the minutes, and credible statements from the elected leaders of the senate, then I would say yes. The source clearly shows that today's senate leaders support Purdue Global with the noted reservations then there is no reason for that fact to be deleted.JA1776 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I just restored this after about 24 hours of no response in talk. If there is something that is factually incorrect in the edit, I am very open to modifying it. Please point that out here. But if this article is going to go into the sentiment of the Senate (something I don't advise at all) it should at least be kept current.JA1776 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Arrest

It's unclear to me and I suspect to most Wikipedia users how the edits undone yesterday could be accused of having a point of view. I certainly did not intend that. When this article was created, the 1970s coverage of the arrests was not available online. I corrected a dead link, corrected some punctuation and reconstructed the incident using original coverage which is now available online. If there is something important that was lost, please make a suggestion here.JA1776 (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm restoring the changes I made on this section. Details about Harris should be included and there are errors in the old language such as the "five months" claim that are negated by the original coverage.(JA1776 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC))

Respectfully, I disagree. The material you removed is supported by the original source. The new text you have included about Harris, who is not the subject of this article, is refuted by Mitch Daniels in the same article you cited -- on the next line of the article "Daniels said he did not agree with the assessment of innocence".

My recent edits to this section have been reverted twice. Once by user @2600:1015:B04A:49FD:AD09:E9A0:2F99:4704. This was apparently that users first edit although that seems unlikely given the use of wikipedia jargon. It was reverted again by an IP user who also appears to have made a series of other recent IP edits to this article from the same Verizon Wireless network and geographic location. It should also be noted that this article has a history of being aggressively edited by sock puppets using the now blocked usernames @1sheropen and @Mrelving. But I put those concerns aside to respectfully suggest that my work on this section should remain for a few reasons: 1.) We are dealing with criminal accusations of a living person. Editors should use care to make sure that the known facts are presented prudently and relevant exculpatory evidence is not obscured without cause. 2.) Daniels roommates, and their viewpoints contain details highly relevant to readers in their quest to judge what happened in 1970. All of the roommates agree that they were using marijuana and the police raid only occurred because Harris was selling hard drugs without the knowledge of the other roommates. It's possible that's a lie but their "side of the story" is well documented and made clear by my edit and it should not be obscured. I will add to the copy that Daniels' did not consider himself innocent but the context makes it clear that he was saying he was guilty of marijuana use, not hard drug use or drug trafficking. 3.) I have carefully attempted to avoid deleting any sourced information in my update. If I did, please point that out and let's find a way to include it. 4.) Finally, I believe my edits improve readability.(JA1776 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC))

My recent statement that the first revert was by a new account was incorrect. I realize now they were all IP edits.

Unregistered editing

I've attempted over the years to keep this page current, accurate and neutral but those efforts have often been slowed by the need to cleanup frequent changes to long settled text by unregistered users that appear to be designed not to add to knowledge but to paint the subject in the worst possible light. This occurred again recently and most if not all the edits fall into this category. Therefore, I am going to undue most if not all of these recent edits, then work on my regularly planned updates and then go back line by line and see if there was anything of value that was in fact added by this unregistered user. In the meantime, if someone catches that I removed something essential, I encourage you to point that out here and we can reach a consensus that way. JA1776 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I made a number of updates in May of 2022 and those edits have been accepted by the community since then. Recently, an unregistered user manually reverted those changes. The problem was that in so doing, the unregistered user made the article more out of date. For example, in my May cleanup, I removed statements based on 2019 financial reports and replaced it with language from 2021. If the 2021 language is deficient, let's work it out here but please do not just turn the clock back to 2019 and force the article to rely on old information. As such, I have reverted to the May language once again.JA1776 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You are free to add 2021 information without deleting the 2019 information. Respectfully, it feels like you are policing and whitewashing this article. 107.120.35.57 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. 2021 info was added months ago and has been added back twice but unregistered "users" (likely one person with a changing IP) keeps deleting it along with scores of other updates the community has accepted for months now. All of these edits seem designed not to improve the readability, accuracy or currentness but to paint the subject in the worst possible light. This is the same thing that has been occurring for years on this article and it impedes the ability to keep the article current and fair. JA1776 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Tollway

Twice now editor JA1776 has deleted properly sourced content in the highway section. I kindly ask you revisit NPOV before removing content. 2600:387:F:E14:0:0:0:5 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

While it is certainly properly sourced, it also duplicates a very similar sentence in the fourth paragraph of the section, as JA1776 (talk · contribs) pointed out in his edit comment. I will remove the sentence from the first paragraph and add the references to the one in the fourth paragraph, since that is the proper spot chronologically.

I'll also note that the fact that the first company went bankrupt had no financial effect on the state of Indiana, since Indiana retained the $3.85 billion it had been paid. While some want to blame Daniels for the bankruptcy, all that the bankruptcy proves is that the first company made a mistake and paid too much. Indyguy (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That is disingenuous, JA1776 removed more than 'duplicate info'. The text removed is beyond what is listed below as the toll road operator raised tolls for taxpayers considerably while deferring maintenance. The bankruptcy of a public private partnership is notable and should be included. 2600:387:F:5511:0:0:0:A (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's see. The sentence you insist belongs in the first paragraph is: Despite doubling toll prices for drivers, less than 10 years after the lease began the original investors filed for bankruptcy due to $6 billion in debt.

The fourth paragraph contains the following two sentences: As anticipated, drivers experienced dramatic hikes in tolls after the lease, which increased the cost to travel on the public road from $4.65 to $8.80 for passenger vehicles, and semitrailer trucks from $18 to $35.20. Despite doubling toll prices, the foreign-owned operator of the toll road filed for bankruptcy in 2014, and its $3.85 billion purchase price resulted in $6 billion in debts owed by the company to its financiers.

In other words, your sentence does not contain anything that is not in the fourth paragraph. However, you did remove the phrase and the promise to make $4.4 billion worth of upgrades to the road from the first paragraph, a statement that is in the source. That maintenance may have suffered as the firm approached bankruptcy doesn't change the fact that they had agreed to invest $4 billion in improvements as part of the deal. I guess removing "properly sourced content" is OK al long as you're the one doing it.

Also, you seem to be of the opinion that the first paragraph of a section has to be a summary of the entire section. It doesn't. The section is merely relating the history in a chronological order. Indyguy (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment Indyguy, but in the spirit of reaching a compromise, I've reordered the article to improve readability. Note, the source contains no information regarding the implementation of the promised $4.4B upgrades. 2600:387:C:6F19:0:0:0:A (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that this change improves readability for at least two reasons: 1.) It takes it out of chronological order. The tolls did not increase until after the political controversy and the same is true for the bankruptcy. 2.) Placing that paragraph there introduces concepts that have not yet been explained such as the fact that a problem with the toll road in government hands, according to Daniels, was that no politicians were willing to raise the tolls and the road was losing money. That background is necessary to understand statements like, "As anticipated, drivers experienced dramatic hikes in tolls after the lease". Also of note, the $4.4B in upgrades is sourced. Finally, I appreciate you participating on talk. That's a start and for that I am willing to give you some benefit of a doubt that I would not otherwise but you should be warned as an IP user with changing IP addresses that this page has a history of vandalism and NPOV violations from sock puppets and IP users so anytime someone without a history of good-faith editing starts revisiting items that the sockpuppets were obsessed before they were kicked off of wikipedia, I get a little touchy and am inclined to revert faster than I would someone with a history. JA1776 (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused @JA1776, are you also @Indyguy? Clarity would be most helpful as you two tend to edit this, and other, articles within short time periods.

Further, I disagree with your reasoning and would point out that user @JA1776 has edited this article more frequently than any other user on wikiepedia, deleting more characters than any other user, in a way that looks like policing/censorship.

I appreciate you putting your thoughts about IP editors in clear text. Systematically reverting edits by IP editors, or holding them to a different standard, is discrimination and does not align with wikipedia guidelines (Wikipedia:IP editors are human too). 66.201.139.49 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

IP editors of course have every right to edit and comment, and I apologize if I have not assumed sufficient good faith. I've just had some bad experiences over the years with IP editors so I challenge you to prove those wrong. I will choose not to take offense at your accusation but it is false. Like other editors of this article, I am knowledgeable and passionate about Indiana politics and Purdue University and am proud of my work trying to keep this article readable, accurate and balanced and will continue to do so as much as I am able. JA1776 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Economy

I am going to revert the recent deletion by an IP user (yet another). The claim was that the text was not appropriate because it was contrasting consumer spending with per capita income growth and was therefore invalid. First, the subject of the section is economy and so there is no reason Indiana's speed at which it rebounded from the recession is not relevant. Second, the deletion also deleted a link and sentence that was about per capita income growth and how when adjusted for Indiana's cost of living, the numbers improved. Third, this section relates more to the 2nd term than the first and it belongs there.JA1776 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your recent addition as it is not supported by facts. First, consumer spending does not reflect growth, if it did Indiana would have advanced, not dropped, when compared to other states. 2600:387:F:551B:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the source for the first stat: "The income Hoosiers earned last year grew slightly slower than the national average, leaving the state ranked 38th in per capita income, according to figures released this week by the Bureau of Economic Analysis." 2600:387:F:551B:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, there are three sources stating two claims and I have added a third 1.) Indiana incomes grew under and after Daniels leadership when adjusted for cost of living. 2. Indiana consumer spending (an accepted measure of the state of an economy) rebounded faster 3. employment rebounded faster. The section topic is economy and all are relevant and properly sourced. JA1776 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Purdue Global

The financials of Purdue Global are complex. Moreover, with time, they will become increasingly irrelevant to this article. I propose that most if not all of this section be edited and updated on the Purdue Global page rather than the Mitch Daniels page. Frankly, I think some of the previous section about the acquisition should also be moved to the main article as well.JA1776 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe readers are better served with a summary within this article. This is consistent with the narratives included regarding OMB, budgetary measures, DST, highways, healthy Indiana, etc, to name a few. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Major Moves Update

I attempted to streamline and improve the Major Moves section which focused mostly just on the toll road and very little on the Moves. In the process, I deleted two items that I believed were not helpful.

1) The first was an op-ed written several years after Daniels left office claiming the Toll Road was an expensive loan. This commentary does not appear to be a prominent argument, nor does it stand up to the claim of "critics" since it's one individual making an argument years after the fact. Because I have not seen that argument echoed, I believe it gives undue weight to a fringe viewpoint: Even critics recognize the Toll Road was not an expensive loan, but flushed Indiana with cash. See Undue weight and the discussion on false balance here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. But since we are dealing with matters of opinion, I will restore it for now to reflect the single source and see if any other editors view it as I do.

2. The second deletion I removed because it's an unsourced claim about the Booth Tarkington Toll station. If the claim is true, it is of very little relevance or significance to the subject matter or even Major Moves.. I will restore it too for now but I invite others to remove it if they agree with me. JA1776 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The narrative is well sourced and I believe warrants inclusion. You are welcome to expand the article with information about the addition moves, however, I believe readers are best served with a comprehensive overview that was included. Lastly, your edit summary "Tried to streamline for clarity and to add more details about Major Moves projects" did not include a mention of removal of content as you explain above. Ushistorygeek (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Tried to streamline" covered removing the extra and non-relevant words to make space for the added details without making a very long Wikipedia article longer. JA1776 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It would be helpful to other editors if the edit summaries accurately reflected what/where content has been removed, especially in cases such as this. Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I see @Ushistorygeek reverted my latest edit but without explanation. It's hard to seek consensus without knowing that. I am going to restore it and kindly ask that the user edit what the user finds objectionable or provide the guidance here so we can find consensus. I will also note that the reversion by USHistoryGeek also removed edits made by other editors that are not in question so my reversion protects those edits. JA1776 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I did comment. I'll copy my comment again here for you:

The narrative is well sourced and I believe warrants inclusion. You are welcome to expand the article with information about the addition moves, however, I believe readers are best served with a comprehensive overview that was included. Lastly, your edit summary "Tried to streamline for clarity and to add more details about Major Moves projects" did not include a mention of removal of content as you explain above. Ushistorygeek (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC

As a result, I will go forth and edit the article. Ushistorygeek (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought my latest edit to this page, which you reverted, did what you asked. It returned the two parts I thought were not helpful to the article per your request, and expanded the Major Moves section as you said I was free to do. That's why I was confused what to do because I did what you asked, and you still removed it. Perhaps you did not recognize that I had restored the information you had requested? Would you take another look at it and put it back in, please? JA1776 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that when @Ushistorygeek reverted my recent edits, it was done in a way that duplicated several paragraphs such as the section about being the "best deal since 'Manhattan was sold for beads", the approval rating drop and rebound, as well as the the criticism from Democrats. I am going to remove those duplications but my intent is to not delete anything that's currently in the section from appearing once. If I accidentally delete anything that isn't a duplicate, please correct it and know it wasn't intentional. I also am expanding the Major Moves accomplishments as I @Ushistorygeek invited me to do so. JA1776 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This issue seems to have returned. I am going to restore the compromise language that has been accepted here for months. The recent edit by @Ushistorygeek deleted sources, introduced typos, deleted a paragraph about how the money was spent, and it repeats itself by including in multiple sections "Daniels and an independent accounting..." I invite the user to articulate the intent of the change and perhaps we can reach agreement here rather than making multiple edits? JA1776 (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@JA1776, I appreciate your diligence in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the article. In my most recent edit, I restored approximately 3k characters that were previously removed. My primary objective was to retain the depth and breadth of information available to readers.While I understand the need to streamline content for clarity and conciseness, I'd like to kindly suggest that when making significant revisions or deletions, it would be helpful to provide detailed explanations for those edits. Using terms like "streamlining" in the edit summary can be somewhat ambiguous. A more specific summary would aid in understanding the intention behind the changes and promote collaborative editing.

Moreover, if you feel that certain sections require modifications, I encourage you to revise them with clear reasons, ensuring that the rationale behind each edit is transparent and consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. This approach can prevent potential misunderstandings and foster a more productive editing environment.

Let's continue our collaborative efforts to ensure the article is both comprehensive and reader-friendly Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like @Ushistorygeek didn't restore 3K characters -- the user deleted 3K characters including an entirely sourced paragraph and several citations that have been on this page for months. That is the opposite of retaining "the depth and breadth of information available to readers" and is borderline vandalism. It would have been more characters deleted but the edit actually duplicated part of a paragraph that was never duplicated before I started updating this section last spring. You are correct that several months ago I wrote that "I tried to streamline" some things but you objected and so I compromised and I restored what you objected to. The version the user edited this weekend has existed peacefully for months and is different from the one that I streamlined. In the end I don't believe I removed anything last May, I only added content. I hate reverting over and over again but when someone deletes entire paragraphs and deletes multiple citations that have existed for months without cause, that to me is reason to be bold and revert aggressively (within the rules) of course. If I am mistaken and I did delete something last May, I apologize and I invite you to add it back in but please do not delete sourced paragraphs or other citations in the process. JA1776 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed observations and concerns. Funny, my edit resulted in +3k characters, and yours deleted the same amount. I understand the frustrations you're expressing, and I genuinely value the dialogue that ensures the content of Wikipedia remains accurate and comprehensive. I must clarify that it was not my intention to "delete" content, but rather to refine the article to ensure its coherence and alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines. That being said, if I inadvertently removed essential content or created a sense of duplication, I apologize for any oversight. Regarding your assertion of vandalism, I'd like to emphasize that my edits are always made in good faith, striving to enhance the quality of articles. I appreciate your patience and compromise in the past, and I respect the collective effort put forth by all editors, including you, to ensure the veracity and completeness of the information provided.

Your dedication to maintaining the article's integrity is commendable, and I acknowledge the work you've done. I encourage us to continue collaborating productively. If there are specific sections or citations that you feel need to be reinstated, I'm more than willing to review and work together to ensure that the article remains balanced and comprehensive. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I am missing something but it's the other way around: My edit adds 3K characters and @Ushistorygeek deletes the same amount. In other words, it is @Ushistorygeek edit that is removing content not the other way around. The reason for that is last May, I did attempt too streamline some material in order to make space for some additional updates but the user objected, so I undid much of the streamlining but kept my update. Specifically, I was trying to include an update on how Indiana used the windfall of cash by including the following paragraph with citations:

Over the next ten years, Indiana would use the cash and interest from the deal to add or expand several major new roadways such as US 31, the Hoosier Heartland Highway, I-69, and the Ohio River bridges. It also rehabilitated 1,400 bridges and 50% of the state's roads without using tax dollars or taking on new debt.

That paragraph is accurate, cited and important and it needs to stay. There are a couple of other citations that @Ushistorygeek continues to delete as well. I am going to restore the citations and the paragraph above. Even though I think it makes the article clunky for readers, I will try and avoid deleting any substance from @Ushistorygeek version. Hopefully, that will satisfy the user and we can move on to improving wikipedia in other ways. JA1776 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I made this change described above. Here is a diff for other users to compare.[1] To my knowledge, the only things deleted or substantively altered from @Ushistorygeek version was

1. During negotiations with Statewide Mobility Parters, Daniels and an independent accounting firm believed the road was worth $2 billion at most and were surprised by the offer of nearly $4 billion in cash, plus that much in contracted improvements. Daniels called it the best deal since "Manhattan was sold for beads—except this time, the natives won."

I removed this because it's nearly word for word identical to a previous paragraph. it's an important point and should be in there and it is, but not word for word twice.

2. The sentence about critics viewing it as a loan was unsourced and didn't make sense to me so I reworded it to better summarize what critics actually say. JA1776 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of citations, and duplication of paragraphs, and removal of an update in Highways section

It will be helpful to other editors if I focus the meandering debate about the Highways section to some core issues. It has three major problems:

1.) It has no citations. Not one. 2.) It repeats several sentences word for word e.g. "offer of nearly $4 billion in cash" and "Manhattan was sold for beads" 3.) It is out of date and does not include sourced and relevant information about how the income from the privatization project has been spent to construct the state's highways.

These three problems were generated by an edit made in September. I am going to attempt an edit that keeps all the content from the current version but also addresses these three issues. I ask that editors work with me to address them.JA1776 (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There are uncited statements and paragraphs, including some tagged with "citation needed" since July 2022.
• The page is over 11,000 words long, far more than what is recommended at WP:TOOBIG. This indicates that the article is too detailed.

Is anyone interested in addressing these issues, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)