Talk:Bill Weld/Archive 1

Education
weld went to MIddlesex School in Concord, Mass., NOT Loomis Chaffee.

Resignation
There is nothing here about the circumstances surrounding his resignation as Assistant U.S. Attorney General in 1988. I think It had something to do with Attorney General Ed Meese’s politicization of the agency.

Crticism
The idea that Weld has "embarrassed" supporters and has failed to garner support seems overly broad and judgmental for an encyclopedia. Did Fasso's people write that line? (under NY Governor's race)

Clinton not Hillary
I changed the reference from "Hillary would easily beat him" to "Clinton would easily beat him." It's more respectful to use her last name, especially considering that all other short references to people in this article use the last name.

Weld's Record
Hi--I think the stats under Weld's record as governor were relevant to this page--especially that they're backed by credible sources like Boston Globe. George55 23:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Weld, Hillary Clinton, and the Roosevelts
If as the article says Weld worked on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings then he probably worked with, or at least worked in the same place with and at the same time as, Hillary Clinton, who was there too. This might be worth mentioning in the context of the possibility of Weld's running against Clinton in 2006. This could also be mentioned in the context of Weld's having defeated Mark Roosevelt for governor of Massachusetts, because as noted in the article about him, Mark Roosevelt was related to Weld via Weld's then-wife, Susan Roosevelt. The exact nature of Mark's relationship to Susan is not mentioned; however, their respective articles say that both were great-grandchildren of President Theodore Roosevelt, which means they are either siblings (doubtful, because if Weld had run against his brother-in-law I think we would have heard about it) or second cousins.

Bias
The section regarding Weld's time as governor is one-sided and rather fawning. It makes factual statements in normative terms (or vice versa) such as regarding the "antiquated" worker's comp system or Weld's "controlling" Medicaid growth. It contains no criticisms, and does not remark on negative effects of the policies mentioned, such as cuts to Medicaid benefits. The section gives many approving mentions of tax cuts and credits Weld with balancing the budget, but does not say anything about how the budget was balanced. It does not indicate whether and which programs were cut, or if revenue increased due to the improved economy.

72.207.82.122 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
It stated he ran the New York office of MW&E in '06, yet later in the article it states he was admittd to the NY bar in '08.--186.247.128.162 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture
Get a better one. his face looks like it was highlighted in pink — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.52.240 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. I exchanged the photo for one already in use in other articles. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 18:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

1948 to 2016, two governors on a ticket
I've removed the bit about Libertarian ticket (Johnson-Weld) being the first since 1948, to have 2 governors. In 1948, the Republican ticket had Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York & Governor Earl Warren of California. In 2016, the Libertarian ticket has former Governor Greg Johnson of New Mexico & former Governor William Weld of Massachusetts. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will agree with the removal, but only because the cite didn't actually back up the content, not due to your misunderstanding of who can be called "Governor". Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved Fuortu (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

William Weld → Bill Weld – Until I edited the page today this article didn't even mention the name he commonly goes by. I'm perplexed. Outlets referring to him as just "Bill Weld" comprise the majority      ; one mostly using Bill, ; using a mix of both,. Per WP:UCN "Bill Weld" is the common name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name, and you've made the appropriate edit to include 'Bill' in the first mention which should cover this. Randy Kryn 13:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have to support this claim? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment "Bill Weld" turns up more than 3 times as many results as "William Weld" on Google News. Unless someone has countering data, I am leaning to support this move. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose His official name is William Weld. That's the name he signs. See . There are two forms of his name in widespread usage, no need to change the name from one obvious form to the other.  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * People normally sign with their full names. Anyway, I would be interested in seeing data that shows "William Weld" is significantly more common in use than "Bill Weld" as far as how he is referred to in reliable sources. Google News points to "Bill Weld".  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 16:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Both names are obviously equivalent to english speakers, and given they are both in use, no need to go with an unofficial version to replace the official version. If the official version were not obviously related to the nickname, or it were wildly less frequently used, you might have a point - but they are both in use. No need for a change. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 17:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will need something stronger than an opinion. Otherwise we would have to move Bill Gates to "William Gates" per that opinion.  We use common names in the Wikipedia. Please provide data that suggests "William Weld" is the common name; otherwise, it doesn't move the discussion.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TITLECHANGES, If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. I don't know what the good reason would be, but it's had this title for twelve years (since 4 March 2004). Has his name usage changed markedly in the last dozen years? (I'm from the area, and I periodically see both names in the press). Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 21:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would imagine "Bill" being his WP:COMMONNAME and the name the subject himself uses (his campaign page and Twitter accounts are mentioned below, and he also goes by "Bill" on Facebook ) both qualify as good reasons for changing it.  Calidum   ¤   20:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. As Stevietheman said above, his common name is Bill Weld. That also happens to be the name used in his campaign website, which shows how weak the "official name" argument above is. See also Tim Kaine, Mike Pence, Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden.  Calidum   ¤   18:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. As Callidum said, there are many politicians who use their informal names much more commonly than formal names. Like President William Clinton and Senator  Charles Schumer. While this is anecdotal more people I know call him Bill Weld and he has often been referred to in that way on places like The Rachel Maddow Show.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech12 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. This is clearly his common name. I can understand concerns that it may simply be a diminuitive that he isn't known by professionally (i.e. Joe McCarthy) but many "official" resources use it, like his Twitter. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Bill Clinton, not William Clinton. SST  flyer  03:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Decker College
Weld was chief executive of Decker College in Louisville, Kentucky for much of 2005, just as the college was pushed into bankruptcy "following a disagreement with the United States Department of Education about accreditation of its construction-related courses and on-line instruction". This matter was also brought up in Weld's 2006 New York gubernatorial campaign. Therefore, it seems this should be mentioned in the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Since there has been no objection or even any discussion, I have boldly added the material. I have striven to keep it neutral. Interestingly, I had no idea Weld was running for V.P. when I happened upon this material.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The article currently says "In March 2016, the Wall Street Street Journal posted an opinion article, expanding on a 2012 piece to make the case that the Department of Education's 2005 claim against Decker College was 'factually erroneous', with revenge against Weld as a motive." Whose opinion was it? Whose 2012 piece was it? Revenge for what? —BarrelProof (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I no longer have access to the article to fill in those blanks completely, but it looks like an editorial, and thus we won't know what individuals formed the opinion. When I saw the editorial before, it linked to the 2002 piece. "Revenge" is WSJ's term, and I honestly can't recall offhand what that was about. Anyone with access should be able to fill in these blanks fairly easily.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose there are two types of opinion pieces published by a newspaper – op-eds published as the opinion of an identified author, and those published as the opinion of the editorial board of the newspaper itself. This seems to be in the second category. That should be clarified in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)