Jump to content

Talk:Roland Burris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editorial board vs. the newspaper itself

[edit]

Both the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times printed editorials calling for Burris to resign from the Senate. I feel that we should write that the editorial board of each newspaper is calling for his resignation. Another editor changed the wording to say that the newspapers themselves are calling for his resignation because the editorial board speaks for the newspaper. Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like to discuss the two views here on the talk page. Your views please. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial board is the main mouthpiece for a newspaper, when the newspaper is stating its opinion. When an editorial board endorses a particular candidate for elected office, the press (and candidates) don't necessarily say "the editorial board endorsed Candidate X." They say "Newspaper A endorsed Candidate X." See this New York Times blog posting which says "the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post call[ed] for his resignation." The editorial board decides what positions the newspaper will take, so I see no problem in stating that the Chicago Tribune or Times the one caling for his resignation. Saying it's only the editorial board making the statements is not backed up by reliable sources.DCmacnut<> 14:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During elections, different newspapers declare for various candidates; rather, the editorial boards do so. I am not sure there is a distinction, but if there is some concern over wording, maybe the RS noticeboard might be a good place to sek clarification. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper expresses an opinion based on the decision of its editorial board. See Editorial board. -Rrius (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i think most of us know what an editorial board is. Could you elaborate on your point? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best to respond to an unclear contribution. As best I could understand, the first clause of the first sentence was missing "do not"; otherwise, "rather, the editorial boards do" makes no sense. You then referenced a distinction without specifying exactly what that distinction was. I inferred that you meant a newspaper saying something versus the editorial board saying something. I noted some logical inconsistency there, but did not mention it to be polite, just as I didn't mention the confusing nature of the contribution as a whole. If you don't feel my contribution responded to your point, then clarify your point.
As to the point that "most of us know what an editorial board is", "most" appears not to be good enough. The crux of the issue is that some people, for reasons yet unstated, doubt the exact proposition I stated. Since no one is explaining why they think it is inappropriate to say "the Tribune called for his resignation" rather than "the Tribune's editorial board called for his resignation", I have to assume it comes from a lack of familiarity with how newspapers function. -Rrius (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's Editorial Board article, "When such an editorial appears in a newspaper, it is considered the institutional opinion of that newspaper." But the Editorial Board article has exactly one source, a self-published web site posting, which rarely considered an acceptable source, per WP:SELFPUB. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha - I think that is the most inventive interpretation of of Selfpub that I have ever heard. Sorry, but newspapers are considered reliable sources, and their opinions, like the blogs of show producers (in reference to their programs), are allowed. However, if you disagree with this assessment, please feel free to consult those noble souls at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For yet more proof that when the editorial board speaks, it speaks for the paper, see this editorial, which is an endorsement of Dick Durbin for Senate in Nov. 2008. The editorial says "for those reasons the Tribune endorses his re-election" and "We endorse Durbin". The "we" is the editorial board. Can we put this to rest? -Rrius (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point in my previous post was that the Wikipedia article about Editorial Boards cited no reliable sources, so the Wikipedia article should not be used as a reference to this discussion. Regardless, I think I now agree that the newspapers themselves are calling for Burris' resignation. Let's consider the matter resolved. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then-governor

[edit]

I've observed edits adding "former-" in front of "Governor Blagojevich did X", which I find odd unless he did X after he ceased to be governor. Adding "then-" is better, but is it necessary? If you would say "then-Prime Minister Churchill" at the start of Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse#Effects_of_the_sinking, fine, but if not, why "then-Governor Blagojevich" and not "then-Prime Minister Churchill"? It strikes me as a form of WP:Recentism and I think it should generally be omitted unless necessary for clarity. Gimmetrow 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "then-" is unnecessary. Blagojevich clearly didn't appoint him (or do X) after leaving office. I'm not clear on what "former" or "then-" is supposed to add. -Rrius (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I started to revert it, then remembered it had been reverted before, after I put it in. :) Yes, it is recentism ...

Introduction: 3rd paragraph ending

[edit]
BUT ALSO SEE third paragraph "investigating EX-governor Blagojevich," (and then see the logic of the sentence if you take that ex off. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one Gimmetrow brought up was harmless, but unnecessarily repetitive. The one you mentioned created the false impression that the investigation was happening after he was removed, so I deleted "ex-governor". It could use "then-", but "ex-" was just wrong. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the tense mis-matching: "are pursuing" ... "investigating" ... "which resulted" (i.e., time travel at the comma. :)


How's this? (hmm, wrought/brought/yielded/ ...)


-- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tenses are fine in the original version. The state's attorney and Ethics Committee are, at the present time investigating. "Panel investigating Blagojevich" is not in the present (or present progressive) tense. It would equally be correct to say "McCarthy led the committee investigating communism in the Defense Department". Finally, "which resulted" is not wrong as a matter of tense (the impeachment and removal are in the past, but it is not clear it actually fits. By using the quote, we are asserting that the testimony resulted in the impeachment and removal, but that is simply not the case. The impeachment committee's report was already finished before Burris testified. His testimony was almost an after thought. I propose the following:

-Rrius (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good (QUESTION: This version does not convey that the impeachment was successful. Is there an elegant way to do that? Or does that not matter?)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about,

-Rrius (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: "... Blagohevich. Blagohevich..." Perfectly correct, but somehow inelegant :) especially since the article is not about him.


QUESTION: What's "the rule" about parentheticals? And is the one above OK? :) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a question of preference, and I'm happy either way. -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the gods of WP don't strike us down for it, I prefer (in this case, for reason above) to go with the parenthetical — partly so someone won't undo it saying "article isn't about Blagohevich."  :) I.E., You are hereby knighted and issued a warrant to stick the above in the article (any way you wish) lol Proofreader77 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have undertaken the charge you placed in my unworthy hands. May the WikiGods have mercy on our souls. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, honorable knight, the dragon that eats parentheticals was (unsurprisingly) awakened. But whether such dragons should act without breathing a bit of fire on the talk page is another matter. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The dragon has only 576 total edits. Not an admin. (No fire.) I.E. "slayable" (in the context of ignoring ongoing talk page discussion.) BUT the issue of Wikipedia guidelines and parentheticals, should be further investigated. ... AND perhaps we had not arrived at a suitably elegant solution. :)Proofreader77 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confession(s) and absolution(s)

[edit]
A confession. I'm the bloke who added then-governor, as former governor looked misleading. Having him as Governor Blagojevich is better, though. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad. I think I put a "then" in awhile back. Or a somebody or two did. lol It's the current-events-in-flux aspect that makes this more complicated to (transiently) "get right." Proofreader77 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Then-" was certainly an improvement on "former". Incremental improvement, it's what we do. -Rrius (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's alot of articles on Wikipedia, which erroneously use former. For example: the US Presidents bio articles (particularly George W. Bush, after he left office). GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. Hmmm ... Perhaps when presidents are first cast out (um, leave office:), there is a tendency to feel we must acknowledge their exit from role... But then, after a time, perhaps when they've passed on and can't sneak back into the White House claiming that Wikipedia says they are president (lol) ... we can go back to referring to them as president, rather than former president. (Excuse my humorous response.) What the WP "guidelines" say about this should be investigated, also. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Former"

[edit]

Hello, Proofreader77. Which of the following do you think would be correct when editing Wikipedia?

  • "Blagojevich was the governor"
  • "Blagojevich is the former governor"

-- AzureCitizen (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: then governor, former governor, etc (look through edit history)
  1. Blagojevich was not the "former governor" when he appointed Burris
  2. See paragraph 3 for more mention of impeachment of Blagojevich (precise wording still in flux, see discussion above)
  3. Every time someone puts in "then" or "former" it gets reverted, so you'd have to convince all the other editors (I believe I tried putting "then governor" in once, but I've forgotten:)
  4. Cheers!

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like "was the governor" Christmasgirl (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This link no longer works: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iDuWXjVE0mlrNjPgzoOZeadpWzoQD98U13JO0 . It's currently the 58th reference Njerseyguy (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Seniority relative to freshmen senators elected in 2008

[edit]

This page lists the date that Burris assumed the office as December 31, 2008 - the date that he was appointed by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. However, on the Wikipedia article Seniority in the United States Senate, Burris is listed as #94 in seniority behind Mark Begich (D-AK), lower in seniority than the class of senators who were sworn in together on January 3, 2009. His seniority date is listed as January 12, 2009, the day that his certificate of appointment was certified by the Illinois Secretary of State. So the question must be asked - on what date did Roland Burris become a United States Senator? Was it 12/31/08, when he was appointed, or 1/12/09, when that appointment was certified? Because if he was a U.S. Senator on 12/31/09, wouldn't he have a seniority rank of #85, before any of the incoming freshmen who were elected in November 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.177.218 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His term began on December 31, 2008. Seniority dates are not always the same as the beginning of the person's term. John Cornyn is another example of someone whose term began on a date before his seniority date. His term began in December 2002, but his seniority date is January 3, 2003. Burris's case is unusual; in fact it may be unique. The reason his seniority date is January 12, 2009, has more to do with saving face for the Democratic leadership than it does technicalities. If you want more of an explanation, I'd be happy to oblige, but I'm told that I can be a bit long-winded, so I'll leave it to you. -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Paul Kirk needs to have today, September 24, 2009, listed as his "Assumed office" date then, if equal standards are to be applied. Why? Because he was appointed TODAY by MA Gov. Deval Patrick, even though he won't be sworn in until tomorrow. And yet, Kirk's wiki indicates that his "Assumed office" date is September 25, 2009.
So what's the problem here? Why is the "Assumed office" date for one appointed U.S. Senator the date in which he was appointed by his state's governor, but for another U.S. Senator, the "Assumed office" date is the date he takes the oath of office?
Furthermore, I haven't checked, but has the same standard been applied across the board to all of the recent U.S. Senate appointees - namely Kirsten Gillibrand, Ted Kaufman, and Michael Bennet? If it hasn't, it should be. Otherwise Wikipedia loses credibility.70.130.189.159 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption

[edit]

Can someone add this into the article?[1] Richard (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expiration of Senate term

[edit]

In the article, Burris said he will serve as US Senator until hs term expires in January 2011. Yet, Kirk is being sworn in November 29, 2010. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, he wanted to serve until January 3, 2011. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roland Burris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Roland Burris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roland Burris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roland Burris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification needed

[edit]

An unexpired term is shorter than a full 6-year term, so the wording here is confusing and nonsensical. Pomodecon (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Burris&oldid=1234729087"