Talk:Lee Bright

Third opinion request

I'm requesting a third opinion on this. An editor has recently sought to tone down this article (see here for an example), but its new stance is still problematic. Another editor accused the contributor of being associated with the Senator's campaign team, though it is unclear if that is the case. Regardless of this, however, there seems to me to be a need to strike a balance between left and right viewpoints. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. The request made there has been removed because 3O, indeed all forms of dispute resolution at Wikipedia, require thorough discussion on a talk page (preferably the article talk page) before resorting to DR. Please feel free to reapply if the discussion stalls out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I posted my request in response to this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussions

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright The page has been continuously vandalized by anonymous editors, using aliases. There can be no other reason for using an alias except to prevent researchers from vetting their objectivity. While steadfastly hiding their own identity, they falsely accuse me of being personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. At the same time they frequently use strongly opinionated terms, which make their own bias clear. They have actually criticized that fact that I have, in other locations, made first hand information available (actual videos of the subject), as opposed to expecting the reader to accept their interpretations in the place of the first hand information.They diligently remove any first hand information. Johnperna (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

JohnPerna why do you keep removing an explanation of who the Club for Growth is? Wouldn't it be a good idea for readers to know that a conservative senator who thinks Lindsay Graham is too liberal, has been acknowledged by a far right group who opposes other mainstream republicans that they think are too liberal? Hallertaur (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel has now resorted to removing a link to a South Carolina Senator's official blog claiming it's not a reliable source of his own words. This seems to be in retaliation for an edit on the Nikki Haley page where he didn't approve of a link from the largest newspaper in the state of South Carolina, claiming it was not a reliable source. He apparently thinks Nikki Haley's Facebook page is not a reliable source for a quote from her either. Very bizarre. Hallertaur (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed sources which do not comply with WP:RS. Arzel (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Facebook and blogs aren't considered to be reliable sources. Also, YouTube can have copyright issues, which is why I removed a YouTube link earlier today. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

When referencing something a Senator or Governor is saying, why aren't they're own blogs and Facebook pages legitimate? That makes no sense. Hallertaur (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think because they're self-published sources. Facebook is particularly discouraged because it is largely regarded as a fansite and often requires registration for the material to be viewed. Usually we should try to find third party sources that report the information. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright.

I know people in The Club for Growth, and I have read things from them including on the internet. I thanked Hallertaur for an example of totally opinionated editing, using subjective terms "far right". I suggested that his judgements about who is "far Right" and who is "mainstream" might be replaced by the simple presentation of facts. Each person describes who is "far Right" and who is "mainstream" based on their OWN position on the political spectrum. The use of such terms reveals more about the person who uses them, than about the entity that is described.

Now I thank Hallertaur for an example of total utter falsehood;

---

total utter falsehood: "They are a far right group. That's not an opinion. That's how they market themselves"

---

I did a google search using: "The Club for Growth" far right. I found NOTHING that came from "The Club for Growth". Every use of the term "far right" that showed up along with "The Club for Growth" came from communists, socialists, "progressives", or other types of "far left". Although Hallertaur remains anonymous his identity is becoming known. Johnperna (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Our own article on the Club for Growth describes them as "fiscally conservative", which is a long way from far-right. It is to the right of mainstream politics, but that is something different. I suggest using the term in this article might be a good compromise on both sides. Also John, I don't think you help your case by making political accusations against other editors. Whatever our political beliefs we should strive to write articles in a neutral tone that give balanced coverage of any topic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Transgender and Refugee bills

I realize that Lee Bright is facing a primary election in a couple of weeks, not the best time to be editing a Wikipedia article on someone, but the additions I made to include the two bills he sponsored in the SC Senate are well-sourced and I believe neutral in tone.Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Bright. 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/20111212011348/http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0193181795.html to http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0193181795.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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)