Talk:Ernie Fletcher

Executive Imunity

I deleted reference to Impeachment under Executive Imunity and deleted quotation marks. The citation link no longer works and the quotation impllies bias as it notes impeachment but not other causes for the governors term to end such as resignation or poor health and implied that there was currently an expectation that the governor would be impeached. (Daveswiki 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Previously unsectioned comments

I removed "When Jim Bunning was re-elected to the Senate in 2004, questions were raised about his age and mental fitness. There are suspicions that if Bunning were to retire in the middle of his term, Fletcher, who has appointment power in that situation, would nominate himself to replace Bunning."

Suspicions of what he might do in a possible future situation and speculations as to the fitness of another individual for public office - especially without any external source for either - are not appropriate in a biographical article. Holford 23:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6/2/05 - So, who is the Republican who keeps coming on here and deleting references to Fletcher's poll numbers dropping and the investigation into circumvention of the state merit system? Fletcher has gotten about as much press over the merit system scandal as for anything else in his entire life, yet you want to delete it from the article? Agenda, anyone?

So who is the unregistered user who keeps coming on here and violating NPOV? I think if "6/2/05" (signature, anyone?) will examine the history logs there isn't one person, Republican or otherwise, who keeps cleaning up this article. Holford 08:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6/10/05 - Facts are facts; why do you keep deleting them? Why do you believe that his earlier 50+% approval rating should be in the article but not his lower, later rating? Why do you believe the merit system investigation, which has dominated news coverage in Kentucky for weeks, moreso than any other event of the Fletcher administration, should not even be mentioned? How on earth can you claim that mentioning those two things = NPOV? That's ridiculous. Quit trying to keep the article fawning and praising and put in facts that are positive and negative about him.

6/14/05 - nice to see that positive and negative things have been left in the article - especially now that three significant members of the governor's administration have been indicted over the incident that you were cutting out of the article.

06/21/06 Returned the word Partisan to the KSC. The KSC is made up of 2 Contributors to Fletcher's campaign, and two members that were appointed to the KSC to SPECIFICALLY HEAR his case on the Merit controversy after four others Recused themselves. The two appointees were ALSO campaign contributors. (an unsigned comment from 161.6.41.146 (talk · contribs))

Um, that the supreme court is partisan is a viewpoint, not a fact. I've removed it. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

Comrade Fletcher suggested Creationism is the correct "answer" regarding the existance of life on Earth. http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060114/NEWS02/601140336/1014 Surely this is significant and ought be mentioned in the article. Desertphile January 14, 2006, 2:18PM Local Mean Time

Calling him "Comrade Fletcher" kind of hints at a POV that may be clouding your good judgment. Thanks for the link. I read the article and it appears that rather than speficially siding with the 44% of Americans who believe in creationism, by supporting Intelligent Design, the governor is inclusive of the 38 percent who adhere to a theistic evolutionary cosmology. Holford 03:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there even any discussion of intelligent design on what should be a biographical page? Seems to me like people are intent on injecting politics into what should be a purely informative and unbiased website.

This article doesn't discuss ID per se; it merely quotes enough of Ernie Flether's words to make his opinion clear on the subject. As far as why his opinion matters - there are a lot of people who think that teaching ID is just another way of teaching religion, and that teaching religion shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars. (In other words, this is a controversy that should be reported in an unbiased way. If the article said that Flether was stupid, or that he was being devious, or something similar, then, yes, it would be biased - not NPOV. But that isn't what the article says.) John Broughton 04:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a controversy you have assumed by speciously arguing that since some people opposed the teaching of ID and Fletcher supports ID, it should therefore be included in his bio? If this is a controversy that has been raised by the general citizenry of Kentucky or even by repeated coverage in the biased news media causing Fletcher to make several statements clarifying his views, then I can see it being a genuine issue. However, if you are going to edit the biography of every politician that supports ID, just to mention that, because some people disagree with teaching it, that seems pointless and not serving the purpose of the encyclopedia. Holford 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Teaching ID is a controversy worth mentioning, for Fletcher, because he is perhaps the only state governor who has come out strongly in favor of this, and because education is a state, not federal, responsibility. (I haven't checked all the ID advocates listed at this page, but none of them seem to be a governor.) Even Sam Brownback, a conservative candidate for President in 2008, won't go on record as supporting the teaching of ID.

As for your statement that I can see it being a genuine issue if this issue has been raised by repeated news media coverage: for a Google search on "Ernie Fletcher" and "intelligent design", the first ten results include the AP wire, several newspapers, and a link to the speech where Governor Fletcher argued for teaching ID in schools. So this is hardly an issue that a few wikipedia editors have decided is important. (And my memory may be faulty, but I don't believe that I was the one who added the topic to the article in the first place.) John Broughton 01:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Republicans really seem to be on the rampage on wikipedia lately.-Laikalynx (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now well over two years old. Nothing more has come of Fletcher's declaration, and despite the fact that public education is a state issue, I'm not aware of Fletcher's view having any impact at all on public education in Kentucky. Unless someone can show that this is meaningful in some way beyond the fact that he is the only governor we know of to support teaching ID, I don't think it belongs in the article. Just in case, and as a show of good faith, I'm moving the text intact and with references to the talk page for potential further discussion.

Copied text follows:

In 2005 members of the Kentucky Academy of Science voted unanimously to oppose any attempt by legislative bodies to mandate specific content of science courses, and specifically to attempts to equate scientific creationism or intelligent design as scientific theories equal, or superior to, evolution. In response, in a February 13, 2006, letter to the Kentucky Academy of Science, Fletcher, an outspoken intelligent design advocate, argues that evolution conflicts with the Declaration of Independence.

My educational background provided me with thorough understanding of science and the theory of evolution. Our nation, however, was founded on self-evident truths. Among these truths are inalienable rights 'endowed by their Creator.' From my perspective, it is not a matter of faith, or religion, or theory. It is similar to basic self-evident objective truths that are the basis of knowledge. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. It disappoints and astounds me that the so-called intellectual elite are so concerned about accepting self-evident truths that nearly 90 percent of the population understands.

References

Change references to <:/ref>

I'm going to switch the ref system. It may take me a few hours to complete. Please bear with me. --FloNight ^talk 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

6/12/06 NPOV/Citation edit

On 6/12/06 I excised the following text:

"On February 24, an ethics complaint regarding the appointments was filed, requesting the Judicial Conduct Commission to recuse the two appointed judges on the grounds that their prior political contributions to Fletcher and association with him and his staff were violations of the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct. [1] [2]"

That ethics complaint was rejected, almost summarily.

Plus, the citation is to a notoriously partisan and anti-Fletcher blog, the credibility of which is often seriously suspect. Throughout Fletcher's term the operator of that blog has constantly attacked Fletcher, often getting the facts wrong. The operator of that blog also is a serial filer of ethics complaints which are routinely rejected - including the one for which the blog is cited as a source!

---

1 BluegrassReport.org is NOT notoriously partisan, and 2 you might just want to put that back now that the NYT has written a FRONT PAGE ARTICLE about it.--Owenaprhys 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other wingnut fruitcakes get coverage in the mainstream press from time to time too. So did the Swift Boat Vets. That doesn't mean they aren't extremely partisan, or that they are at all credible.

BluegrassReport IS notoriously partisan. Just take a look at the front page on ANY DAY of ANY WEEK. It will be covered with slams on Ernie Fletcher and other Republicans, always tossing in bolded adjectives like "corrupt" to describe them. Democrats are not treated similarly, ever. It is run by the person who was the losing campaign manager for Fletcher's Democratic opponent for governor. There is not a person in the state who does not recognize BluegrassReport as being notoriously partisan.

Right. Tell that to Lunsford and the KDP. Just out of curiousity, do you LIVE in Ky? I do.I'll admit, there isn't a person in the state who still supports Fletcher that does not call BGR partisan (all 50 people) --Owenaprhys 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for displaying your true colors and agenda, Owenaprhys. I'm sure with those comments, people will trust your assertions as to who is or isn't partisan.

Anyone who wants to should check the blog out for themselves - if anyone even cares about it. The front page is always covered with partisan screeds and attacks on Fletcher. Give it a look and decide for yourselves whether it is credible, or a partisan attack vehicle.

BTW, your ad hominem attack has no relevance to any of this, but yet, I live in Kentucky, and probably have for longer than you. Not that it matters.

That is doubtful. And no, it was not an ad hominem attack, it was a simple question based on the fact that you are clueless about Kentucky and Kentucky politics.

BTW have you seen the latest attack posting against Kentucky DEMOCRATIC PARTY Chairman Lundergan.--Owenaprhys 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how come you don't sign?? Sorta makes it seem like you are hiding something.--Owenaprhys 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that BluegrassReport.org is a notable critic of Governor Fletcher; therefore, it's safe to assume it belongs in this article. That it is in the See also section is rather innocuous anyway. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

BluegrassReport.org is not a credible source. It is a blog full of accusations without evidence, gossip without basis, and frequently false facts. If that blogger likes someone (like state Treasurer Jonathan Miller, who got him to start it) then only good news about that person appears; if that blogger dislikes someone, he regularly smears them, usually for no good reason. Beyond that, that blogger is currently under indictment for felony tax evasion; it is hard to think of an indicator of dishonesty greater than that. Citing that blog as some sort of reference is pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.120.174 (talk • contribs)

It's irrelevant whether BluegrassReport.org is seen as a credible source. It is not being used as a reference in this article. Rather, it is listed as a related topic under "See also", as it is indeed related. And it's also clearly notable. Since that article and its listing here make it clear it's a partisan blog, I don't see what the issue is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I had to point out what (above) is probably the most hypocritical and laughable posting ever put on Wikipedia:

"And no, it was not an ad hominem attack, it was a simple question based on the fact that you are clueless about Kentucky and Kentucky politics."

Why didn't that guy just post "Allow me to deny that my prior ad hominem attack was an ad hominem attack and then try to justify it with yet another ad hominem attack"?

Pathetic. 20:08, 6 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.195 (talk • contribs) .

Welcome to Wiki Ernie. Congrats on your Revisions of History. Do it enough and I bet most people will forget that you are tainted and will vote for you............Yeah, right.

Comments like the one above, among others, demonstrate why pages like this have to be protected against partisan hacks with agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.120.174 (talk • contribs)

There are no restrictions on who can participate as long as policies are followed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Plea deal?

Why would the events of August 23/24, 2006 be labeled as a 'plea deal'? No plea was entered. 'Agreement to dismiss' is more accurate.

you're right, it wasn't a plea deal. thanks for correcting it. Anthonymendoza 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

We need an image of Ernie Fletcher for fair use in this article. If anyone can please find a pic and upload it with the correct tag, that would be great. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardons at end of tenure in office

Governor Fletcher issued some very questionable criminal pardons at the end of his term in office. I think they are at least as significant as some of the things discussed in this article, such as the Cumberlands issues. That's especially true given Fletcher's controversial use of his pardon power earlier in his term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.28 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Executive orders section

I am relocating the "Executive orders" section here. As it is, the section includes only one executive order which, in the grand scheme of the events of Fletcher's administration, seems a pretty small issue. The section itself is pretty short; if it is replaced, there should be some discussion of lasing impacts that resulted from the order, if there are any. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Copied text follows:

In April 2006, Fletcher signed an executive order removing language from the state's affirmative action plan specifically protecting state workers based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Fletcher handed down his executive order on Kentucky's ninth annual "Diversity Day," reversing an order signed by former Governor Paul Patton two years earlier that protected state employees from bias including their sexual orientations or gender identities.

References

Offered a commission?

It looks like Fletcher was the "commander" of various USAF aircraft, including the F-4 Phantom. Well, I question this -- or at least the connection between his service as a commander and turning down a commission. Pilots in the USAF are officers. The F-4 does not require much of a crew. So how would Fletcher be a "commander" of the aircraft? (Yes, I know, the person piloting an aircraft is the pilot in command.) That is, if he did not have a commission, why was he piloting the craft? The utter lack of in-line citations makes this problem difficult to reconcile.--S. Rich (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Utter lack of inline citations"? Every sentence in the paragraph is cited, some more than once. While I don't claim any real knowledge of Air Force protocol or rank, here are some relevant quotes from the sources I used. Perhaps you can use them to reconcile the conflicts you see:

From Fletcher's biography at the National Governor's Association:

"He served in the U.S. Air Force as an F-4E Aircraft Commander and NORAD Alert Force Commander, leading flights that intercepted Soviet military aircraft during the Cold War."

From Al Cross' biography of Fletcher in Kentucky's Governors (ed. Lowell H. Harrison), p. 265:

"The next year, hoping to become an astronaut, he signed up for air force ROTC and after earning an engineering degree went on active duty. His assignment included interception of of Soviet aircraft near Alaska, and he got high marks from his superiors, but he turned down a regular commission when his six-year commitment was up in 1980."

From Courtney Kinney's article "Dr., Preacher, Pilot...Gov?" in The Kentucky Post (September 7, 2003):

Fletcher, a member of ROTC, graduated in 1974 and went straight to Air Force flight training in Oklahoma. After flight school, he was stationed in Alaska during the Cold War where he flew missions for three years. His Air Force training, Fletcher said, prepared him for everything else that came along -- medical school and politics. "It was always a lot of pressure. We were always being tested," he said. "We were intercepting Soviet aircraft, so we had to be up on enemy weapon systems. It was not a laid-back, relaxing job, but I liked it."

From "Kentucky's Military Governors", a part of the Kentucky National Guard e-Museum:

"Governor Fletcher joined the United States Air Force in 1974 and served as an F-4E Aircraft Commander and NORAD Alert Force Commander where he led flights that intercepted Soviet military aircraft during the Cold War. Fletcher departed the Air Force in 1980 with the rank of Captain. His awards and decorations included the Air Force Commendation Medal and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award."

I found that last one after I finished working on the article. I've just added the relevant new information to the article.

Hope this helps clear things up. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just changed the category listing to the more specific USAF officer. Regarding the commission, here is where some lack of expertise gets in the way of proper verification. He may have been a "reserve" commissioned officer in the USAF, but according to the last item you provided, he was commissioned. In the Army at least, we have officers of the "Regular Army" and the "Army of the United States". These are two branches of the officer corps, and both involve commissioning. I surmise the USAF has a similar arrangement. With this in mind, it is inaccurate to simply say he turned down a commission, because it looks like he had a commission (perhaps as a reserve officer). Moreover, it's inaccurate to say he turned down a regular commission because of such-and-such reason. From what I've seen, we do not have verification for this. Hence, my complaint about the lack of WP:IC. There are lots of cits, and while print cits are good, they are impossible to follow without the actual print article in-hand. Since the cits you've provided are available on-line, I hope you'll fix. Thank you so very much, Acdixon, and please forgive my overblown complaint about the citations.--S. Rich (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: The entry about receiving an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award may be puffery on someone's part. To the uninformed reader, it may look like the individual received the award while actually the unit to which the individual unit was assigned received the award. Such awards are worn on the right side of the individual's uniform. The left side is for the awards given to the individual as an individual. At least in the Army, when you are a member of the unit that receives the Unit Award when it receives the award, you get to wear it always on the right. If you are a member of a unit that has received a Unit Award in the past, you get to wear the award while you are a member of the unit, but must remove it when you depart the unit. Small point, of interest only to military personnel. We look at these things when we look at the awards fellow service members have received, in small part to establish pecking order. It is no big deal (unless you are wearing an un-earned award), and certainly not an important item to a civilian. I hope you can clear up what Cross has said about turning down a commission without complicating the issue to much. Best regards. --S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, immediately after what Cross says above, he states: "Fletcher said the defense budget had been cut, reducing his squadron's flying time and morale, and he thought a medical degree from the University of Kentucky might help him become an astronaut." Also, a 2003 article by Roger Alford in The Kentucky Post states, "But amid military cutbacks during the Carter Administration, Fletcher left the Air Force, returned to Lexington, enrolled in the UK medical school, graduated in 1984, and became a family practice physician." ("Fletcher Wants to Add Governor to Full Resume", The Kentucky Post, March 3, 2003). It seems like I read this elsewhere, too, but I can't lay hands on the sources right now. So his reasons for leaving the Air Force do seem to be documented. Is it now accurate to say "He was offered a regular commission in 1980, but he declined it, citing cutbacks in defense funding and reduced flying time for his squadron."?

Regarding the Outstanding Unit Award, I'll defer to your judgment as to whether or not it should be included. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Certainly leave the Unit Award in -- it is referenced properly. I do take issue with "citing" the reasons he left the Air Force. Did he say "I'm turning down the regular commission you have offered me because . . .."? (Worded this way makes it sound like he was making a sort of protest.) No. A more neutral tone is needed. I'd prefer something like, "As budget cutbacks were reducing his squadron's flying time and because he wanted to pursue a medical degree, Fletcher turned down a regular commission in the Air Force and enrolled in medical school." The "his squadron's flying time" is a red herring in three respects: One -- Once he received the regular commission, he very likely would have rotated out into another unit. Two -- It may have been his own morale and flying time that he was concerned about (e.g., he did not want to become a desk jockey). Three -- We know he wanted to become an astronaut and he saw the reduced flying time as hindering this ambition. These are surmises on my part, but they do illustrate how merely "citing reduced flying time" etc. is a POV statement.--S. Rich (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

When I was initially reviewing the sources and recomposing the article a few months back, I was left with the impression that he did directly mention the budget cuts as a reason for leaving the Air Force and his departure probably was at least partially in protest. While I'm not really convinced there is a POV issue here, I've adopted your suggestion, although I've left the bit about medical school until the following paragraph for better flow. I've also removed the dubious tag. Let me know if you see further issues with this adjusted language, and thanks for providing some clarity. I always feel a little ill-equipped to describe a person's military service in much detail. Over the past few years, I've rewritten the articles about every Kentucky governor; many of them have military records, so if you're interested in checking the others for clarity and accuracy, be my guest. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to send a message by my talk page or by Wikimail.--S. Rich (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer: Meishern (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC) ~ Hello,

I will review this article. Please give me a week or so. Meishern (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

---

OK. The way I review articles, is paragraph by paragraph, first checking refs. My goal is to get the article GA standard. So lets start with the intro.

---

INTRO

"He served as the 60th governor of Kentucky from 2003 to 2007. Prior to being elected governor, he was elected to three consecutive terms in the United States House of Representatives." Lets put dates he was in the House first, and continue with Governor dates.

Done.

What was his Bachelors degree and what year grad? refs.

This information is in the Early Life section, and it is referenced there.

What type of physician? (psychiatrist, neurologist, etc..) refs.

Not sure what his present specialty is, but as you can see in the Early Life section, he started as a family practitioner in 1984.

I don't know qualifications to become a Baptist Minister. Did he get certified, where? Church name & location. More info with refs.

To be a Baptist minister, usually a person would be licensed to preach by a local Baptist congregation, but some congregations may not even require that. (Baptists do not have a hierarchy the way Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and others do. The local congregation makes all the decisions.) To pastor a Baptist church, one is generally ordained by a local congregation after an interrogation by an ordination council. I don't know if Fletcher did either one of these things; no reliable source speaks to it.

"When legislative redistricting threatened to pit him against a member of his own party to retain his seat, he instead ran for Congress, " ... dont like this sentence. sounds POV. Make it more neutral.

The reliable sources say that was his reasoning for running for Congress. See the Legislative Career section for the appropriate reference.

"He immediately became one of"... same POV. rephrase this to make it neutral unless u show a reference.

Looks like you've already changed "immediately" to "soon" which is fine. See the Legislative Career section for details and references.

"over Ben Chandler, grandson of two-time former governor A. B. "Happy" Chandler." ... is this necessary? "over the 4th cousin of John, who was twice governor". remove it since he didn't beat Happy Chandler but a relative.

I would consider removing this, but the Chandler name is an influential one in Kentucky politics thanks to Happy. He was twice governor, a U.S. senator, Commissioner of Major League Baseball, and a force in Kentucky politics for half a century. Later in life, he became something of a perennial candidate for governor, but his endorsements still carried weight. Reliable sources say that his endorsement of Wallace Wilkinson contributed to Wilkinson's come-from-behind win in the 1987 gubernatorial race. That was just 4 years before Happy died at age 92. For Fletcher to have beaten Happy's grandson was no small feat.

The third paragraph of the intro better have a reference for practically every sentence. Some strong statements are made but I see nothing backing them up (references).

Read the rest of the article. It's all referenced there.

I would cut down the intro 3 paragraphs by 30%. There is too much useless info in my view and not enough relevant. This should be a quick overview not what the 3rd paragraph attempts to portray. (i am open to views on this subject)

Can we talk about the specifics of what you find "useless"? I've done my best to summarize a very tumultuous gubernatorial administration in just a paragraph.

You MUST put references into intro, or this will not pass.

Per my 60+ other GAs and 15 FAs, references generally do not appear in the lead or infobox, but are assumed to be cited in the body of the article. I actually used to cite the lead, but in one of my very first nominations, I was told that practice was discouraged. If you find a claim in the lead which is not cited in the body of the article, let me know.

Please remove photos of J Lenno, and candidates he defeated unless (reference) it was a major upset. Instead put photos of him with family, or flying plane, or doing surgery.

Sure, just as soon as they let me in the operating room with him, I'll get right on that. Seriously? You think those kinds of photos are just readily available, complete with a free license? I've used the most relevant free-use photos I have available. If you can point me to more relevant ones, I'll be glad to switch them out.

Please correct the intro and we will continue, you have 7 days.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Early Life

---

His family had a farm, a general store and his father worked for a Gas Company. His family was transfered for a few years to a different state? Need explanation about farm and general store. Who ran it? Sold? Or exclude it. They moved around, but no mention regarding store and farm. did they sell it? bankrupt? let relatives run it? need info.

The reliable sources at my disposal do not speak to any of what you are asking.

I will do some adjustments, feel free to correct me.Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to the rest of your review. I'll do my best to address your concerns where possible. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses and judging by your tone I think we can work on this article and get the GA. I sent an email to Mr. Fletcher asking if he is willing to donate some photos for Public Domain use. (never hurts to try).

Good luck with that. It would be nice to have such photos. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding referencing the intro, I randomly looked at Stalin and Reagan and the intro is referenced in both articles. So please reference the intro. I know the article itself is well referenced, and your rebuttals on every other point won me over, but the references in the intro will (in my view) make the article more solid. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalin probably isn't the best example, as it is neither GA nor FA, and thus, hasn't been officially reviewed against the MOS. Reagan's is an FA, so it is a better model. Only two cites appear in the lead; one for dates, the other for a direct quotation. Quoting from WP:LEAD#Citations, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." I've never been a fan of the "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" standard (it's too ambiguous, imo), but nonetheless, there is some language here about balancing the need for citation with the disadvantage of repeated citations. With that in mind, which facts do you consider "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I'll provide cites for those. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Section: Legislative Career

---

"character curricula"... could this be explained somehow or rephrased so that the average reader may get a better understanding what exactly it means? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Section: Other matters of 2004 and legislative session of 2005

---

Thomas Clyde Bowling part should have subsection. I would break this section up. It is very interesting that a medical doctor orders an execution, and i feel deserves a section to itself. I will do it myself, see how article looks, and I am open to debate/opinion whatever on the subject. I just find it interesting. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I also find it interesting, but I think the MOS would probably frown on creating two one-paragraph sections – as your edits did – in order to highlight it. I've reverted that change. We can discuss further if you wish.

Please look at changes I made up until 2005 sub-section. This was the 1st run, so I may have grammar errors, or rephrased a sentence where meaning was lost. I never edit political articles, and never will again. My head is spinning. Yet I faithfully read every word. So far it looks like a nice article. I just wish we had him with Leno. Also something else to think about. Since the first 2 photos are black/white, why not make the rest of them black/white as well to give article more consistency. I know Photoshop well, and can give the page a more consistent look. Up to you. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made some revisions to your revisions of the prose. I have no problem hashing those kinds of things out with you over several edits, and I think many of your changes did improve the readability. I'd advise against making the color photos black-and-white. If you do, at least create copies instead of overwriting the originals, since they are probably used in other articles as well. I've never seen mixture of black-and-white photos with color ones cited as problematic before, but I suppose someone might think it is. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pass

I read through it all twice. Now I need a beer and a massage, lol.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article is well written in a neutral point of view with reliable/valid sources.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reliable refs with most sentences referenced very well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very broad in coverage. Lot's of interesting referenced facts.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral. I found the article to have 0% slant in either direction.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable. No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images present and are PD.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes and is a GA.

Wiki Project Creationism still relevant here?

I see that this article is listed under Wiki Project Creationism/Intelligent design. There is no mention of these issues in the actual article at this point (other than him being listed under [[Category:Intelligent design advocates]]. With that in mind, should this article be delisted from that project?

By the way, a belated congratulations to everyone who worked on this article to get it to GA. The only thing I knew about him prior to reading this was the plane incident on the way to Reagan's funeral, and I found the article interesting and informative. Kansan (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. As you can see above, while trying to get the article to GA, I found that the bit about his ID advocacy didn't fit well into the overall narrative and was a comparatively minor issue in his term as governor; hence, I moved it to the talk page. I'm inclined to believe that the article doesn't and never did belong in WP:Creationism, since it doesn't seem that Fletcher's belief in ID affected much of anything. I think you'd be safe to remove him from the project, but others may disagree. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancestors section

I just found this article after following the link to it in this week's Signpost. It's impressively comprehensive and well-sourced, and deserves to be a featured article; but I have to ask, what's the point of the 'Ancestors' section at the end? Tables like that are commonly used in articles on members of royal or noble families, where most or all of the ancestors have articles themselves; this is the first time I've seen it in an article on an 'ordinary person' (for lack of a better term), whose ancestors seem to have been entirely unremarkable. Does this table really add any useful information to the article, beyond what's in the 'Early life' section already? Robofish (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped a note to User:Spacini, who has been adding these for Kentucky governors lately. I think it was something he was doing for the Kentucky Historical Society, but I'm not sure about that. Glad you enjoyed the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 15:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

While I would disagree that US governors are just "ordinary" people, I don't think that the ahentafel charts are lacking useful information. So many US governors have gone on to higher offices or become notorious characters.

It seems that the "BE BOLD" aspect of Wikipedia has been abandoned by many editors and I would think that the ancestry of a governor might be of interest to someone. It's information that isn't conveniently found anywhere else and for someone doing research about a governor's family--particularly their ethnic, religious, economic, or geographic origins--the names are there and they can choose to do original research of their own on those individuals.

Several Kentucky governors came from large, political "machine" families: John Y. Brown, Jr, Buckner, Garrard, Crittenden, Helm and others come to mind. Some, like Brown, have children or other relatives who are currently active in Kentucky politics. Then we have notables like Goebel, Chandler, and Shelby, who are remarkable in their own right and their ancestry and political philosophies were directly influenced by their families' origins.

Personally, I do not see the ahentafel charts as being intrusive or cluttering to the articles as the default display is hidden. But if folks want me to stop adding them, I will. It's a tremendous amount of work, but to me it is enjoyable.

My amigo Acdixon is right that I am working on a project for the Kentucky Historical Society to document Kentucky's governors' ancestries. That work will include the very things I described above that helped shape those men and one woman to become governors. But that is original research and that's verboten on Wikipedia. The ahentafel charts for our more recent governors are bland--I cannot deny that. Not a lot of notable people in their ancestries. But the further back one goes, the number of governors with ancestors who have Wikipedia articles increases.

Honestly, I'm just glad that someone has noticed the work that I've been doing. Thank you for noticing, even if you don't think it's particularly valuable information.

--Spacini (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernie Fletcher. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527181343/http://kynghistory.ky.gov/people/Kentucky+Military+Governors.htm to http://kynghistory.ky.gov/people/Kentucky+Military+Governors.htm

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernie Fletcher. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111161107/http://altonhealthcare.com/about.html to http://altonhealthcare.com/about.html

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)