Talk:Robert J. Bentley

Military Career

May want to discuss Bentley's experience in military. ElderHap (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• May also want to include current controversy over whether campaign ad exaggerates Dr. Bentley's military service.--158.15.255.228 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is written like a campaign advertisement

This article is a campaign advertisement. 74.248.169.131 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

agreed. this is a biased article aimed at furthering his political career

I concur. Byrne 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.105.227 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Article definitely needs to be cleaned up and stick to wikipedia's bio guidelines. Wiki should be a place for people to fact check, not be campaigned to. --158.15.255.228 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits and reverts

The article, as of 15:00 GMT on 6/27/10 did not meet Wikipedia's information requirements. I have removed material that is not sourced. Please see Wikipedia's standards on Original Research, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, Verifiability, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Reliable Sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. There have also been complaints of this article being "biased" and having been "exaggerated". Please see the page "What Wikipedia is Not" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, under "Soapbox or means of promotion", as well as the Neutral Point of view standards, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. 71.12.191.64 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The article as it stands is improved from its original state. Much of the non-neutral material has been removed. Per Selfpub standards, sourcing non-controversial material to the campaign website is fine. Unless there are reliable sources that dispute content from the article source (or one of the other conditions), the website is a valid reference. Blanking the majority of the article is counterproductive. Thanks, Boromir123 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Hi. I took a look at the article after a request at WP:RFPP that the article be protected from editing. I don't intend to protect the article at this point, but I have tagged the article indicating that it (a) has very few references for a WP:BLP, and that there appears to be a dispute about the article's handling of BLP issues.

I realise that one "side" in this dispute is represented largely by IPs. I do not regard that as a hindrance to discussion however: there are posts above from IPs who have contributed to the article. I'd encourage editors to steer new editors, including IPs, to this talk page.

I'd encourage all editors to stop reverting each other. Discuss, get a consensus here, and then change the article.

TFOWR 18:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have worked to clean this article up. The URL editors have a very valid point. An article of this length needs a lot more sources. I worked with what I could find. In some cases, information that might not necessarily need to be deleted had no source that was readily available. Perhaps other contributors are able to do this research, as it is time consuming.

The article, dating back to its creation in October of 2009, is heavy on what 71.12.191.64 and 166.137.13.70 mentioned... that is the soap box promotion, lack of sources, etc. for a bio. I encourage administrators to further moderate this article. I have added it to my watch list. I also encourage the URL editors to register a profile, so you can also watch it and be properly identified and take credit. Kudos for your knowledge of Wikipedia policy.--Verdad (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR and Verdad. I will keep an eye on the article as well and start looking for sources. Boromir123 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• There's clearly been a lot of good work on the article. My concern is that, as a WP:BLP, it has higher standards than other articles, and that it appeared somewhat lacking in references. However, that's improving rapidly - references appear to be shaping up well. I stress that I have no opinion on the text of the article, merely on the text being adequately sourced. TFOWR 09:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

My name is Trey Edwards and I work with Robert Bentley's campaign (stated in the interest of complete transparency and honesty). That being said, I strongly believe in fact-based, unbiased information, so I have done some edits:

• I added at least half a dozen sources from reliable websites, including his own biography, his section on the Alabama Legislature site, another government website listing committee positions, and Huckabee's own original endorsement on his PAC website.
• I have removed a couple "citation needed" links because I added a source in the following paragraph that would qualify as a source for it as well.
• I have fixed some major grammar problems in the "Early Background" section without modifying any of the facts.
• I updated the paragraph about the Reemployment act to reflect the fact that Governor Bob Riley has now signed the measure into law.

I agree that some of the information in the article may seem a little biased, I see paragraphs that reflect well and paragraphs that reflect poorly on Bentley. I left those as-is, because, as I work for his campaign, I am poorly qualified to be an impartial observer. I would encourage some third party with no relation to Alabama politics to improve upon those articles and paragraphs as they see fit. One thing I noticed as an attempted impartial observer is that there are far too many references to minor, individual accomplishments in Bentley's life that could only be used to make him look better. These would include items such as his place on a debate team in 1961 or the fact that he graduated at the top of his class. I leave it to someone who has a more thorough knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines on these types of articles to modify those as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.100.243 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement at the end of the article, "Bentley also has been criticized for changing his name to 'Dr. Robert Bentley', then changing it back after Republican Party officials refused to accept it." is not only misleading and biased, it is untrue. The only criticism of his name has come from his opponent, Ron Sparks, so to put that up seems like a biased attack. Even the two articles given from "sources" are from local newspapers talking about Spark's radio ad criticizing his name change, and do not show anyone besides Sparks making an issue about it. Additionally, the second half of the sentence has no basis in fact. I am personally aware of the facts and have personally spoken face-to-face with Robert Bentley himself on this issue. He received permission from the Republican Party to put "Dr." on the ballot BEFORE he changed his name, but when he went to fill out the forms to register, the system couldn't recognize "Dr." as anything but a professional title, which is against the rules. Thus, he had to go BACK to the courthouse and change his name again so he could register. He changed his name to "Dr. Robert Julian Bentley" because he wanted to be known as a career doctor, not a career politician. Taking these facts into consideration, especially the fact that only one man has really criticized his name change, I suggest that this statement be removed entirely or modified so it is clear that the attack was made only by his opponent. I will return to this article in a couple weeks and if no one has objected, i will remove it. --Trey Edwards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.73.145 (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Revisions and changes Re the Role David Ferguson, Steven Berry and Sally Albright

My name is Steven Berry, I was Dr. Bentley’s original Communications Director past the June 1 primary until June 11th, 2010. I feel prompted to write the following this in response to Angi Smith’s comments that New Media Director Sally Albright, and Campaign Manager David Ferguson and I played minor roles in the campaign, and her repeated efforts to remove mentions of the fact that we were the team that got Dr. Bentley into the runoff. Angi's similar comments to a professor at the University of Alabama Birmingham, who then repeated them on the news resulted in a written apology to us from him when he realized he had been mislead. Angi has no firsthand knowledge of our roles in the campaign. She was not based in the primary Tuscaloosa Headquarters, and is/was unaware of day-to-day operations of the campaign. She was a part- time employee until the three of us were pushed out of the campaign. By the time she eventually became campaign manager, it would have taken supreme effort or incompetence to lose the election.

In terms of my contributions – you can look at every single press release on the campaign website from December through June and notice that I wrote them. I also was responsible for the redesign of the website, drafting content for the blog and regular updates to our supporters. Additionally, one of the first things I did upon assuming my position as Communications Director was to work with the campaign manager and Littlefield Consulting to rebrand the Bentley for Governor campaign as Dr. Bentley for Governor. “Alabama is sick and needs a doctor” is a theme that grew out of this / echoed this theme and was used throughout the campaign. I also worked to book Dr. Bentley on every radio program I could at a time when he was an asterisk in the polls and he had to fight for every media mention – in fact his talk radio nickname was and is “snowball” because no one thought he had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. These were all difficult tasks which Angi did not witness working from home in Birmingham, far removed from the Tuscaloosa Headquarters (though I frequently telecommuted from nearby Northport when I had a lot of work to do and couldn’t afford to be distracted by volunteers at the office). I also helped Dr. Bentley prepare for debates and candidate forums by preparing extensive background material on issues with which he was unfamiliar.

Social Media Director Sally Albright used a number of innovative strategies to push content out to potential supporters and build a strong following for Dr. Bentley on various social media platforms. She also developed the “Believe in Bentley” virtual yard sign program for Facebook to promote the belief that Dr. Bentley could win the primary. Similar virtual yard signs were later adopted by other campaigns, including Martha Roby’s successful campaign to unseat Bobby Bright in Alabama.

But don’t take my word for it. The following is a transcription of a personal note Dr. Bentley sent to me weeks after we were forced out of the campaign:

July 21, 2010

Dear Steven,

In the letter I wrote sally, I expressed to her my appreciation for what you did during our campaign. Steven, you worked so hard and I do believe you are one of the best writers I could have ever hired. You were always responsive to me and were able to take my words and thoughts and put them in a concise and clear message.

Thank you for all you did. The victory the other night belonged to you and Sally as well as all who have been a part of our campaign.

Thank you for your faithfulness and hard work. Anyway I can help you with letters or recommendation in the future, (sic) please call on me.

As I told Sally, this letter is not being written out of sense of duty or agreement, but out of a heart of thanks to both of you for what you did during our campaign.

Again thank you and may God bless you and Sally

- Robert Bentley

Finally, I have a glowing recommendation from Dr. Bentley to future employerss and graduate schools which Bryan Sanders, who replaced David Ferguson as campaign manager, signed as a witness. If I could figure out how to upload these documents I would do so.

74.96.46.128 (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Stevens C. Berry

As an Alabama political analyst who covered the campaign, I have been watching this page, as I intend to make several additions to it in the coming months. I must concur with Mr. Berry. It appears that "AngiSmith," who did not disclose her connection to the campaign even as it was spelled out in the article, is attempting to gloss over the first of many missteps taken by the Bentley campaign. The Ferguson firing was a big deal, covered and editorialized extensively in state and national media (as documented), and cost Bentley several key endorsements in the runoff. I think it merits inclusion here for posterity's sake, as do the other stumbles that plagued the campaign under Sanders' and Smith's respective tenures, such as the false Vietnam service claim, the Stan Pate corruption allegations, and more (which I intend to document here when this issue is resolved.)

Wikipedia is not a place to sanitize the past or settle political scores. I think it is time for the grown-ups to step in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alabama Flyer (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alabama Flyer (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Alabama Flyer

Need a picture image

Does someone have a free image that we can use here. The present one is slightly out of focus. JodyB _talk 11:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is still extremely biased

There are some old complaints here that this biography sounds like it was written as if it were a campaign ad. It still does. Are the editors of this article paid trolls from the Bentley campaign? 68.191.44.110 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Governor of Alabama Section

I think some of the large block that Cheeseman reverted (...still in very good faith. I'm just saying', is all...) can be kept. Like the tornado outbreak and the billion dollar announcement. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/?n=event_04272011 & http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/12/gov_robert_bentley_legislators.html

It seems the contributors here are on the same page. Statements like, "Largest reconstruction effort since the civil war," are ridiculous. I would also contest their NPOV.

What do you think Cheeseman? --Verdad (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It would need to be toned down a lot. I'm not from the US so I have little idea of what he has actually done but the portion that was there was very POV. I'd even argue for a COI in some cases as, looking through the edit history, anything even remotely negative has been quietly removed, even if sourced. -- Teh Cheezor ^Speak 13:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Bentley's employees even admit to violating COI in earlier talk. I've covered Alabama topics before, and they are of general interest to me. Bentley is a public figure; and the Wikipedia readership are generally interested in information about him. There are key points about Bentley that should make it into the article. (He ran on "X" platform and promised not to take a salary until the state reached normal employment levels. On his 100th day in office, the state was hit by a historically significant tornado outbreak... etc.)

The promise not to take a salary is relevant to the readership, and ongoing as an issue. Employment in Alabama was reported on as recently as yesterday. http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/ouch-alabama-state-rising-unemployment-last-12-months/ The source is a political publication. So, "consider the source." However, it does cite federal statistics. An edit like, "By Bentley's 4th year, as the United States continued to slowly recover from the Great Recession, employment in Alabama had not yet met the Governor's stated goal," seems OK to me. I might even go out on a limb and state, "Alabama, under Bentley, saw rising unemployment from 2013 to 2014." Though, I question the overall relevance of the statement in an article about a public figure.

If we can find a verifiable source which doesn't ring of political bias where an individual- or especially a representative from an organization- praises Bentley for his handling of the tornadoes, I think we can include that. I won't be going about searching down such a source. I'd love it if the author of the large block would present some cited sources. That would be excellent. But, we don't need to have an article that says, "Bentley was widely praised for... [citation needed]" That's just plain silly. --Verdad (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If by the end it doesn't sound like a campaign advert then I think that's a job well done! -- Teh Cheezor ^Speak 12:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment and affair scandal

Just a reminder to everyone that this is a biography of a living person and it is extremely important to adhere to WP:NPOV. I am trying to maintain this while adding the substantive material to the article; if anyone has an issue with the tone I've struck, or any other feedback, please add your comments. However, due to the significant and rare nature of the scandal at this point (it is not common in Alabama for impeachment proceedings to be filed against a governor, especially not by a member of their own party) this is clearly going to be a relevant topic historically and thus will need to be addressed. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to add: Some suggestions are to use words like "allegations" when referring to facts not yet proven, and to ensure that any denials of unproven facts are adequately represented. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. The page is appropriate as of now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

Your existing source falsely claims that the governors residence is the "Montgomery County Jail"

Residence Montgomery County Jail ( THIS IS FALSE AND PROBABLY BIAS INFORMATION ) 108.82.108.89 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism already removed. General Ization ^Talk 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

He's Not the governor of Alabama. Can't edit.

He's Not the governor of Alabama. Can't edit. Southsam7 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

I find it incredible that the fact that this man changed his party affiliation from REPUBLICAN to DEMOCRAT is not mentioned on this Wiki page. I ask that you add this information to this page. This man is now a disgraced DEMOCRAT. Not having that information is untenable! Johnboysauctions (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Considering that he ran for re-election as governor in 2014 as a Republican, and was successful, we'll need a source for your contention that he is now a Democrat. General Ization ^Talk 17:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to read this.  Not done. General Ization ^Talk 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)