Talk:Martin O'Malley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled section

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)

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)

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.

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).

"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)

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)

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)

Stained Glass Portrait of O'Malley

Does anyone know where that stained glass portrait of O'Malley was hung? I was in a pub on Usher's Quay in Dublin, Ireland, in Sept 2010, and saw one that looked exactly like it. I cannot now though remember the name of the pub. It struck me as interesting not so much because it was a stained glass portrait of O'Malley, but because it was in a pub thousands of miles from Maryland. If anyone knows 1. if that picture is from that pub and 2. the name of the pub, I'd like to edit the caption to note where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcgrath (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NPOV tag

There are lots of items throughout the article that are phrased in either Pro-O'Malley or Anti-O'Malley which should be cleaned up to neutral phrasing. Some depend on reviewing what the cited sources actually say, and I do not have time to do fact checking today. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Did he really raise state sales tax 20% or tax collections by 20%? What is the sales tax rate - can't be 20% or higher. (alr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areback (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The state sales tax rate went from 5% to 6%; the additional one percent was one-fifth of the former rate, thus a 20% increase. —Adavidb 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still disingenouous, that's not the way the average reader thinks about percentages and sales tax. 74.103.78.244 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The same is true of the claim he raised income tax by 15% using a percentage of a percentage is not the standard method.

Um, I spent 10 years in business journalism, and it was very common practice to use those exact methods when reporting statistics. So, a country's per capita GDP grows 10% if it increases from $50,000 to $55,000. The same would go for an increase in sales tax (although we rarely discussed such topics), if it increased from 5% to 6%, that would be a 20% increase in the effective sales tax rate. We would do the same when writing about actual revenue collections, that is, report the percentage by which it either increased or decreased. However, if you want to make it absolutely clear, you can specify that it was raised one percentage point from 5% to 6%, that should be both politically neutral and factually accurate, and also well within common practice when writing about government policy and economic statistics, although I might also be interested to know what happened to revenues as a result of the increase. That said, I was a business journalist and editor, not a Wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.204.105 (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

-Whomever is removing the statement regarding the Senate Bill 277 that Governor O'Malley just signed, it is a matter of great importance and possibly the defining moment in how he will be remembered. Senate Bill 277 legalizes automated traffic enforcement - speed cameras- throughout the state of Maryland. Speed Cameras are highly controversial - banned in 13 states across the country (two states have banned them in the past two months) and Arizona and Louisianna are in the process of trying to ban them. In all probability they will be on the ballot along side O'Malley in 2010 and I think I have tried to be fair and informative without being insulting. Basically, don't delete it. Let's have a truthful record of what transpired, even if speed cameras are highly unpopular and that may impact the governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthspeaker09 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs a reliable source citation for verifiability, not just a claim here of its significance. —ADavidB 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, the only thing under "Legislative Accomplishments" is a tax hike? Who's running this, the Ehrlich campaign? 74.103.78.244 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Martin O'Malley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article containes many changes due to notoriety of the subject, needs additional source verificaton, an image would help as well. Marylandstater 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

O'Malley's March

I'm curious as to why the references to his musical career were removed? 130.167.237.89 (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's there at the bottom of the article, could potentially be expanded though considering that the band is still active: [1][2][3]. Kmusser (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 23:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• The lede seems a bit short. Perhaps go into more detail of what he did before governorship?
• You never actually say the birthdate in the heart of the article. Maybe mention it in "early life"?
• The end of the second and third paragraphs of the "early life" section are unsourced.
• "In 1991, he was elected to the Baltimore City Council to represent the 3rd District. He served from 1991 to 1999." - given how short these are, perhaps merge these sentences? Unless, can you get any of what he did while on the council? This is a fairly important step in his political career. Was there anything here that led to his candidacy to mayorship?
• "O'Malley announced his decision to run for Mayor of Baltimore in 1999, after incumbent Kurt L. Schmoke decided not to seek re-election." - source?
• Did anything of importance happen during his mayor election? Any debates? Any advertising? How did he win so easily? He also won a majority of votes in the primary - how did he do that?
• "The Washington Post wrote in a 2006 that Baltimore's "homicide rate remains stubbornly high and its public school test scores disappointingly low. But CitiStat has saved an estimated $350 million and helped generate the city's first budget surplus in years, O'Malley said."" - so is this quote by O'Malley or the W. Post? If the former, then you should say that, but at the same time, isn't there someone else you could use to describe his tenure?
  • I think I get it now, but maybe take it out of quotes and say "according to O'Malley", or something, for the last bit, to clarify the whole thing wasn't a quote by O'Malley. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Did O'Malley do anything during his second mayorship, aside from run for governor?
  • Did he? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The Washington Times reported later that the Governor's administration had issued a press release touting a new $28 million highway interchange leading to one of St. John's properties." - what highway?
• "In 2002, Esquire magazine named O’Malley "The Best Young Mayor in the Country," " - how old was he then?
• Most of the first paragraph of "Elections" in "Governor of Maryland" is unsourced.
• The Baltimore Sun mentions how O'Malley dealt with "rising crime, failing schools and shrinking economic prospects", but the article only details how he dealt with crime, nothing about the other two.
  • Anything about this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Two of the paragraphs in "Budget" are unsourced.
• I think you should mention both Maryland houses' vote totals in favor of same sex marriage. It was a pretty major part of his 2nd term, so a bit more detail would be good. Also, when did he sign it into law?
• "Standing in for 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during a Democratic convention on June 2, 2007 in New Hampshire" - I'm not sure I understand this. What sort of Democratic convention?
• "O'Malley expanded "his exposure among the party elite and activists." - who said this quote, and why is it notable?
• "to state district judge Catherine "Katie" Curran O'Malley" - shouldn't this say former, since she is no longer a judge?
• "O'Malley appeared in the film Ladder 49 as himself. The History Channel's documentary First Invasion: The War of 1812 featured O'Malley in a segment regarding the British attack on Baltimore in 1814." - source?
• I notice some references aren't cited properly, such as 26, 27, 28, and 29.

Those are the main things. I'll put the article on hold for now. Good luck addressing these, and if you have any questions, feel free to lemme know. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've touched upon all these issues, please let me know if there's anything else I can do or forgot to. Thanks. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Much better already. Just a few small other things. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the newspaper quotes, as for his mayorship, I feel the information included accurately portrays his work as mayor, before and after re-election. But upon further inspection, I'm afraid his work then has either been lost to time, or it's been deeply buried by his work as Governor, it's almost impossible to find an article with Mayor instead of Governor attached to his name. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Martin O'Malley, the ballad singer

This Martin O'Malley is on Irish radio this minute singing a ballad song! It's great, and can be found here. He's saying how he was brought up in a home steeped in Irish music and culture and that his great grandfather, also Martin O'Malley, was from Kilmilkin in the Maam valley on the Galway/Mayo border. He seems very humble. 89.101.41.216 (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

When/What to add about O'Malley's Positions on NSA/national security state/international affairs

The article makes clear that O'Malley has presidential ambitions. So when should the article start including his foreign policy/national security and international affairs positions? Has he even gone on the record yet, and to what degree? -96.26.108.183 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well?? --75.57.5.160 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources start to cover it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am filing this GAR because I do not believe this article comes close to meeting the criteria for a GA article.

In terms of GA criteria 3a and 3b, there are many places where the article does not have adequate coverage and/or goes into too much detail about something.

• In "Early life and education", half the section is about O'Malley's father, not O'Malley. More is needed on O'Malley – what kind of student was he, what was his major subject in college, what were his other interests, etc. Was he president of his class, did people see this in his future?
• "He is a descendant of a War of 1812 veteran, and is an active member of the General Society of the War of 1812." Unsourced, and unclear whether the second part refers to O'Malley or his father.
• Did O'Malley ever practice law? Not clear.
• In "Early political career", he was a Baltimore City Councilor for eight years, but there's no indication of what he did in that office other than sit on a couple of committees. What legislation did he sponsor, how did he vote on key matters, what were his relations with his constituents, etc. This is a major omission.
• In "Mayor of Baltimore" "Tenure", all it discusses is his approach to crime. He was mayor for eight years, he must have done a number of other significant things in office besides that. City services, relations with city labor unions, relations with businesses, economic track record (to the extent it can be ascribed to a mayor's actions), race relations, etc. This is a major omission.
• There should not be a "Mayor of Baltimore" "Controversies" catch-all section. All controversial material should be included in the normal narrative sections they occur in, in this case "Tenure" (or the tenure could be split into first and second terms). This is a longstanding practice in WP – a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here — and the same was subsequently done for some other political figures' articles, including those running in the 2012 presidential election and those running in the 2016 election.
• What's more, the "Land developer controversy" one is related to his 2006 gubernatorial election and belongs in with that part of the narrative, not where it is.
• The description in "'MD4Bush' incident" is either too much (is this really important? is it a BLP violation?) or too little (why was this fellow Democrat out to get him?).
• The "9/11 — budget comparison" matter seems kind of trivial – the kind of verbal blunder followed by faux outrage that all politicians have to deal with. Maybe most of it belongs in a Note rather than the main text.
• "Media attention" is not usually a separate subject header, but descriptions about a politician's media coverage are integrated into the career narrative.
• Somewhere, there should be O'Malley's reaction to the death of Freddie Gray, the police behavior, the riots in Baltimore, etc. It happened years after he left office, but the causes go back a long way.
• In "Governor of Maryland", the "Democratic Party" section is too short and choppy. The material can really be moved to the section that deals with his national ambitions.
• In "Governor of Maryland", the "Crime" section is short and choppy, and the CitiStat/StateStat material is a repeat of what is already stated two sections above.
• In both the "Mayor of Baltimore" and "Governor of Maryland" sections, it would be better if the material about his re-election were in the middle of the sections rather than at the top. Re-elections are referendums on first-term performance, after all.
• In "Presidential politics 2016", there is nothing about who he would be running against (HRC) or about how his bid has been damaged by two recent events (his lieutenant governor losing the 2014 gubernatorial election to a Republican in a very blue state; the Baltimore riots).
• There's no indication anywhere of O'Malley's general political ideological viewpoints. There doesn't necessarily have to be a full-blown "Political positions" section, but there have to be some indication of his general policy preferences.
• Better articles integrate "personal" material in with the biographical narrative. Here, the MD4Bush incident is described before we ever know O'Malley is married. Worse, the fact that his father-in-law is a longtime, successful Maryland politician is introduced way at the end of the article. Maybe that connection had a role in O'Malley's upward climb? Integrated, chronological narrative is the best.
• Information about O'Malley as a musician is duplicated in two different sections, "Personal life" and "In other media".
• "Electoral history" is missing information about his early Maryland State Senate and Baltimore City Council elections as well as the 2003 Baltimore mayoral race.

In terms of GA criteria 1 and 2, there are many MoS violations, which include but are not limited to:

• The lead is too short.
• "Baltimore" shouldn't be linked in a subject header.
• "Political ambitions" is a meaningless subject header (all politicians are ambitious); "National ambitions" would be better.
• "Percent" should be spelled out and usages like "... O'Malley won the Democratic primary with 53%." are substandard.
• Some links are overly repeated, some are missing (e.g. Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School; Westminster, Maryland).

Cite formatting is substandard throughout:

• Authors are sometimes last, first and sometimes first last.
• Newspapers are sometimes italicized, sometimes not.
• The Washington Post sometimes has the 'The', sometimes does not, sometimes is called Washingtonpost.com.
• Most dates are mdy but some are dmy and some are ISO.
• Some are missing publisher altogether, e.g. " "Martin O'Malley Courts Democrats Before May 30 Announcement", "O'Malley to chair party's governors group".
• Some are broken in url linking, e.g. "O'Malley announces 2016 launch details".

Regarding GA criteria 6:

• I am betting that the top image is a copyvio. Just because it appeared on some arts.gov page doesn't mean it was taken by a federal employee. It was probably taken by a Maryland state employee and thus is not available to WP. At the time the article was listed as GA, this was the top image, which itself was illegitimately cropped and flipped.
• The stained glass image is also probably a copyvio. You can't take someone else's artwork and put up a photo of it, especially when it's taken in Europe.
• The inauguration image is substandard in quality even by WP standards – it looks like it was taken through tissue paper.

For all these reasons (and more if I spent more time on it), this article is not close to being of GA quality. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

At the time I filed this, I notified the original nominator and reviewer and four different projects, and of course anyone watchlisting the article saw this GAR appear on the Talk page. Twelve days have passed and there have been zero responses here. (Re images, I did get the State of Maryland image deleted but it turns out the stained glass one falls within Ireland's allowable freedom of panorama.) Therefore I will be delisting this article from GA. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

2016 presidential campaign

2016 presidential campaign should be a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.16.220 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hardly at this point. HGilbert (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does Hillary get a separate article? In fact, it was created 11 and 1/2 months ago! 173.66.197.57 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Dudes, O'Malley already has one, created two days ago! 2600:1002:B11B:326E:B5BF:285E:1DE6:5A36 (talk)< — Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Illegal vs. undocumented immigrants

I have reverted the article to read "undocumented immigrants" but now am wondering what the term should be. It appears that both versions are politically loaded, the one toward the anti-, the other toward the pro-immigration stance. Any thoughts? HGilbert (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought the correct term was undocumented immigrant. I mean, this is an encyclopedia. Teammm ^talk
_email 20:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed this back. The relevant articles on Wikipedia are titled Illegal immigration and Illegal immigration to the United States, and those titles have been repeatedly supported by consensus. Hiding this behind a redirect, and the redirect behind a piped link, is whitewashing the matter with a euphemism. It definitely is a euphemism in this case - if the state of Maryland offers a person reduced tuition because of their specific application for reduced tuition, they are aware of that person and you cannot say they are "undocumented". Meanwhile, they are in the country illegally, regardless of local toleration. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs a picture at the top

Going into the campaign to run for president, readers would like to see his portrait-picture at the top. Can someone put one in? The campaign team should be happy to put one in themselves, or contact a WP editor to assist. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes they would but the only ones available are from a while ago https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Martin_O%27Malley Jadeslair (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

O'Malley's March article has been merged into here

I have imported the material from the soon-to-be-deleted O'Malley's March, trimming some of the detail and replacing Facebook citations with citation-needed tags. The new material has gone into the "Personal life" section, and I removed a mention that was in "In other media". I kept some of the biographical stuff about other band members—though I don't really think that belongs in a section about O'Malley's personal life—in case we want to promote the subsection into a separate section elsewhere. Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.governor.maryland.gov/biography.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

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

• 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". 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: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.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016 Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[4] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[5] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[6] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[7] Discuss on article talk page. Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[8] Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page. Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[9] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[10] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[11] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[12] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13. Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body, Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[13] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)