Jump to content

Talk:Martin O'Malley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMartin O'Malley was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed
June 11, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Abortion

[edit]

Why is there no mention of this guy's position on Abortion? The word abortion is not in the entire document or on the talk page (until I put it there). I have verified that he is pro-abortion while at the same time claiming to be Roman Catholic. --24.177.0.156 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a conspiracy? or it could be that no one has added that. What is your source? Jadeslair (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have verified incorrectly. There's no such thing as pro-abortion. That said, I believe O'maley is pro-choice.Ff11 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Adjustment

[edit]

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!!!

Removing religion from infobox

[edit]

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin O'Malley. 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) 14:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Martin O'Malley. 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) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Pic

[edit]

I found the new picture of Martin O’Malley https://www.ssa.gov/agency/commissioner/ 2600:6C5E:5B3F:D0E0:FD9E:B645:E8EC:10C4 (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Blog post was used to support both positions cited in the article. Thr same blog post has been cited in Federsl News Network, a reputable source on the subject matter. G23d1 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vandalism

[edit]

Possible vandalism on 02/3. Potentially unflattering but factually accurate information was removed anonymously without reasons for citation. Page restored. G23d1 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism again.

[edit]

Same anonymous user continues to remove content with no talk or no explanation. Tom bosley 2024 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Zombi, I am with the Counter-Vandalism Unit if an anon continues to remove content from this article without talk or editing summaries and you believe it qualifies as vandalism under Wikipedia:Vandalism you should report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I you don't know how to do this I could walk you through it or do it for you although I would need links to the user and edits. Thanks! ZombiUwU (💬 ~♥~ 📝) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expand info on tenures in elected office

[edit]

We should have a bit more detail on his time as a city councilman (he served for eight years), and a lot more info on his mayoralty. He served two terms.

If need be, and the mayoralty section grows too long, we can always spin it off to Mayoralty of Martin O'Malley.

It also seems that we should have some more info on his governorship. If that also gets too long, it can always be spun off to Governorship of Martin O'Malley. SecretName101 (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_O%27Malley&oldid=1256334827"