Talk:Carole Keeton Strayhorn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Party Switch

The article says, "Strayhorn switched affiliation to the Republican Party in 1985." Was she a Democrat before that? When she was mayor of Austin, her party wasn't officially known, because Austin municipal politics are nonpartisan, but her policies were generally good for the rich and bad for the poor, implying her sympathies were more Republican even then. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Strayhorn totally sucks. Paying people to collect signatures? hahahaha 24.13.86.24 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not to feed the trolls, but Kinky also paid for signatures. About 10% of his signatures were from paid collectors, though that does pale next to the 50% number I've heard for Strayhorn. Oddly enough, those numbers are awfully close to the numbers of signatures excuded after validation... --Robertb-dc 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

not related to the article, this topic canidate for deletion? Locriani 07:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't believe Wikipedia policy allows for deletion of "topics" that are part of talk pages. Even if they're silly. --Robertb-dc 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

shoulda suggested archiving. Locriani 05:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

My concern is that the majority of information has been added by one user who is likely a Strayhorn political supporter. The article could be improved with some cleaning up by experienced editors.Wtnelson 07:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the title "Her four sons" should be renamed "Family" or something less "folksy" sounding Butterflyvertigo 21:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Platform?

The historical information is nice, but what is her platform? blahpers 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question--her official webpage doesn't post any positions on any issues! 24.13.86.24 04:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing her campaign has said is "Down with Perry", including several not very polite and wildly inaccurate or deceptive ads. Unfortunatly, we can't make an article on something that isn't there, as the resulting piece would either be extremely anti-Perry, anti-Strayhorn, or a torrid mixmash.

Strayhorn staff deleting negative information.

Someone with an IP address from Austin, Texas keeps deleting any information perceived to be negative from Strayhorn's page. I have no feelings one way or another about the Strayhorn campaign, but I did personally experience the e-mail controversy along with rude replies from staff. There has been a lot of talk about the e-mail spamming here in Austin, and in the context of the current campaign I think the fact that such controversies exist should be mentioned.

• I'm sure if there's a verifiable source, it should stick. I've got both Carole and Kinky on my watchlist. --Robertb-dc 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Still disputed?

I don't see a lot of "dispute" going on here -- certainly nothing that we can't handle. Are there any objections if I remove the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" template from the page? --Robertb-dc 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The dispute had to do with the "Email Controversy" section. If I remember right, there was some controversy over anons wanting to remove the section. As it currently stands, the section is filled with "Citation needed" tags. And somewhat rightly so. As it stands the section is negative and unsourced. If such a negative section is going to remain, it really needs strong sourcing. The sourcing request tags have been in for over s week, and noone has made an effort to add sources that I can see. I personally do not know or care whether the section is true, but for it to remain here it really needs to be sourced. Hmm. As I think about it now, as it remains unsourced, it's really a violation of WP:BLP. Between that, and a week of "Citation Needed" with no effect, I'm going to go ahead and remove the section for now. I have no objection to someone re-adding the section, as long as they source it well in the process. - TexasAndroid 14:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In reading The Austin American Statesman, we find daily mention of Strayhorn's misuse of her office, grandstanding, libelous and slanderous behavior. While there may not be much dispute on the Wikipedia, the controversy is strong in Texas. Why can we not just mention who the woman is and the fact that she is running for Governor of Texas. Why do we have to put the ugly things she says about others in the article? Why do we have to make her sound like everyone's favorite? Let's just do the standard bio and let it go. I say, let's either delete the extraneous comments or let people post away with their own take on the woman. Bill Hood 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I just removed the NPOV template, thinking it was focused only on the email controversy section, which is now gone unless/until someone can properly source it. But you bring up new issues. If you feel that quoting her is not proper, then be BOLD and go ahead and clean the article up. If someone disagrees with you, and reverts, then it's time to get discussing things here. :) - TexasAndroid 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Policies?

It doesn't say much about what she intends to do if she's elected - just her criticism of Perry. Can we improve this? --Shay Guy 05:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mayor of Austin legacy

She's now kind of remembered for getting Austin into "the nuke", even though Austin voters were against it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)