Talk:Tennessee Republican Party

message: In June 2009, two Tennessee Republican staffers were exposed for sending racial and racially insensitive emails while working in State House and Senate offices.  In the most recent case, House Speaker Kent Williams asked for and received the resignation of Blake Graves, a member of the College Republicans, who worked for Rep. Karen Camper, in Memphis.
A few weeks earlier, in May 2009, in a similar case that gained international attention, Sherri Goforth, a legislative aide in Senator Diane Black's office, circulated a racially charged email depicting a collection of portraits of United States Presidents showing current President, Barack Obama as a black frame with only eyeballs visible. The email was denounced by both Republicans and Democrats for its blatant racism.  Senator Black's limited response of reprimanding her employee, Goforth, gained international attention and condemnation. The GOP's Minority Outreach? This drew heated criticism from localRacist and Ridiculous and nationalLatest Republican Racist Email Features Hilarious Summary of 44 American Presidents blogs, as well as Tennessee Democratic Party Chair Chip Forrester, who called on Black to denounce the email and fire the staffer.Forrester Demands Sen. Diane Black Fire Staffer Who Sent Racist Email
Done. Scribner (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll rework the links later tonight. Scribner (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Scribner (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial and offensive email controversy

message: Meshmedia, I presume you objected to the anti-Semites for Obama section.  The controversy over the ad focused on the use of Obama's middle name, Hussein, and incorrect and stereotypical claims of Obama's "Muslim" garb.  The attempted guilt by association tactic wasn't part of the controversy.  Scribner (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semites for Obama

message: Nota Bene: Scribner retitled this section.  This is not the title I gave the section when I opened it.  Altering another editors posts is also a violation of Wikipedia rules.Malke2010 00:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And as such, I have reverted his refactoring.  Refactoring of talk page comments to change the meaning is not allowed.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This is the Tennessee Republican Party article.  Your questioning the need for this article is absurd.  The researched materials here exist in several political articles on Wikipedia.  Some of which I wrote; some of which I didn't write.  The materials here have survived several months of scrutiny and do not violate WP:WEASEL, WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV.  I have removed the only specific complaint you made, regarding staged comments.  Malke's protest is in retaliation to an edit I made on the Palin article in which he objected here.  Check the times of the complaints.  Removing the tag you placed.  Don't disrupt Wikipedia for your own petty agendas, Malke.   Scribner (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true.  I have this article on my watchlist.  I have appropriately added the tags.  This article does violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYN WP:WEASEL and WP:UNDUE. In addition, rather than discussing changes, you appear to fail to WP:AGF and are engaging in an edit war.  You appear to believe you have ownership of this article.  WP:OWN.  Please do not threaten me with a block as you did here. .  This threat seems evidence that you believe you own this article. And please do not put my name in your edit summaries and the section heading.  What is your motive in doing that?  You have not corrected any of my concerns regarding this article.  You must put the tags back.  The article needs a great deal of work.  The tags are there to alert other editors of what needs to changed in order to direct their attention to it.Malke2010 17:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than making wild and unspecific complaints of policy violations, I advise you to list your specific complaints with this article on this talk page so that they may be addressed.  And yes, you tagged and attacked this article within one minute of my Palin edit, with which you also disagree.  You been warned about your disruptive editing from two editors in the last 24 hours.  Scribner (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: not at all true.  And edit warnings?  Also, not true.  And referring to an editors concerns as 'your own petty agendas,' is a violation of WP:AGF.  Malke2010 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I note you have a history of being blocked for removing tags, and you've also removed tags on this page before.  Malke2010 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Malke, your petty retaliation and personal attacks are getting tiresome.  I consulted with the administrator who placed that tag and rewrote the section to satisfy his objections.  Those are the first two sections on this page.  Scribner (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your comment.  I agree, this article does follow a racist trend.  I think it needs to have balance, as well.  It violates WP:NPOV as well as WP:UNDUE.  Thanks for your comments.Malke2010 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the tags for neutrality and the criticism sections.Malke2010 00:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't follow a racist trend, the actions of the TN GOP follow a racist trend.  Your reckless and disruptive edits don't represent anyone's opinion other than your own.  Scribner (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: SoCal L.A., there are four racial incidents mentioned here.  The other two sections are presidential campaign ads.  Scribner (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't call edits disruptive simply because you disagree with them.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme POV in this article 

message: Daedalus969, use the talk page any time you place a tag.  With regard to integrating the criticisms, there's not enough of an article into which to integrate.  Scribner (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You should use the talk page yourself.  The tags are legitimate.  If you persist in removing them, I will go to the noticeboards.  You've got a history edit warring over tags.  If there isn't enough article to integrate all your claims, then you should be working on finding some positive content.  And the sections with email controversy, etc. do not belong at all.  The persons involved were not from the Tenn Republican Party.  They were staffers working for legislators.Malke2010 06:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no.  There is no policy or guideline stating that I must use the talk page when placing tags, before or after.  Furthermore, as is quite clearly stated in the tags, controversy sections should not take up 80% of the article.  If you want to have an article just about the controversies, go ahead and attempt to create it, but for here, you must edit it into the article itself.  This article is about the party.  Not everything bad that they have done.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Malke, you have a point even though both incidents were sent by Republican staffers from senate and house computers, prompting racial sensitivity training for every staffer in the state.  I initially reverted the inclusion for the Senator Black edit, I'm certain you're aware.  This is the edit I consulted with an administrator on and rewrote.   I think you wrong about this but I see your point.  Scribner (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your refactoring of my post.  My comment was addressed to you, not Mal, and therefore, it was indented once after the message you left.  Your message was also addressed to Mal, and not me, therefore, I fixed it appropriately.  If you disagree fine, change it, but don't alter my own post again.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He did the same to me.  He changed the section heading from what I had to "Malke's Multiple Tag Issues."  BTW, he just got blocked for 24 hours for disruption.Malke2010 07:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And as such, I reverted the change back to what you originally put.  Refactoring talk page posts is not allowed.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Daed.  I appreciate that.Malke2010 07:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daedalus969's tags 

message: :I removed the email controversy section as this has nothing to do with the entity known as the Tennessee Republican Party.  While I agree that the behavior of certain of the officials of this party were outrageous vis-a-vis the 2008 election, the material must still be presented according to WP:NPOV.  It cannot have sentences that make judgments, or present the material with a slant toward POV.  We can't use words like 'stereotyping' and 'attack,' etc.   
:The material in the controversy section must either be deleted or it must be placed within the article.  As the proportion for this article is out of balance to the controversy section, then more material must be added, and it must be neutral.  A brief, descriptive sentence is likely all that is needed to cover these controversies.  The detail is overwhelming the article.  Sometimes you can say something more powerfully with fewer words.  Malke2010 07:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After a thorough search of sources, etc., it is very clear that the Grunstaff content is inappropriate for this article.  This article is about the Tennessee Republican Party.  It is not appropriate to include here, every scandal from every Republican in the state.  The sections on the ads that were run by the Party are relevant, however, and should remain, althought they should be reduced in content because as they appear right now they seem as WP:UNDUE given the overall size of the article.Malke2010 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited down the controversial ads to more conform with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.  The length is now more appropriate considering the length of the entire article.Malke2010 05:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found out that the so-called "controversial ads" are not ads at all, but rather a press release and a youtube video.  I've edited them down to make them less vio of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.  Especially since there's no other content about the subject of the article, it almost appears that the page was created just to provide a platform for these comments and others that clearly had nothing to do with the Tenn Rep Party.Malke2010 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the youtube thing because it turns out it wasn't the controversy the edit claimed it to be.  I couldn't find anything controversial about it.Malke2010 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited content for relevancy to article and for vio of [[WP:NPOV]] 

message: An encyclopedia should not be written as if it is a party website, campaign brochure or policy platform. Wikipedia does not speak for the Tennessee Republican Party, e.g., "We want t oconvince the people who are on the fence, that they are truely republicans because they believe in the core values". We, in Wikipedialand, do not want to convince anybody of anything. We only want to provide verifiable information from a neutral perspective. And we want to use correct spelling an capitalization, but that it another matter. Ground Zero | t 12:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing in the voice of the party

message: I've deleted the history section; it was cited to http://www.city-data.com/states/Tennessee-Political-parties.html but in fact very little of the wording was changed.  Please see Talk:Georgia_Republican_Party#History_section for an explanation of how to take a source like this and rewrite it so that it doesn't violate copyright. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section copyright violation 

message: I think that the Tennessee Republican Party's positions, especially when they are unanimous in the legislature and Governor's Office, should be included. The entire Tennessee Republican Party in the legislature voted for and the Tennessee Republican Governor signed legislation allowing public officials to refuse to marry interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples, among others, for any reason of "conscience or other religious beliefs." In 2024, the Tennessee Republican Party's members in the legislature voted along party lines to pass a bill that allows public officials to refuse to marry a couple "for reasons of conscience or other religious beliefs" including interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples; the state's Republican Governor, Bill Lee, signed the legislation into law. The law does not specify under what circumstances a couple may be refused other than for the public official's individual discretion. The law allows "the possibility for couples to be refused marriage for a whole host of reasons, including their race, religion or national origin." The law has sparked national controversy. SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage controversy, including racism and homophobia