Jump to content

Talk:Bill Lockyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California sues carmakers over global warming

[edit]

[1] sued for creating a "public nuisance".20 September 2006. 71.103.115.122

Global warming lawsuit and suppression of information on Nadia Lockyer

[edit]

There has been repeated removal of well-documented facts regarding the hiring of Nadia Lockyer as head of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, and a false press release put out by the Center after she was hired. Are these edits being done in good faith. 22 October 2010. 76.252.221.149

(NB: the section header "Global warming" was originally posted OVER the section header "California sues", in addition to removing the msnbc link. The edit history has now been recreated).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly, Lockyer staffers are repeatedly removing anything negative about Lockyer and his wife. These edits are being done every day, in fact, more than once a day. Lockyer has promoted himself as a free speech defender and advocate, this certainly proves his hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.113 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

This page reads like an ad for Lockyer. Someone should see if it isn't just lifted from a website. 3 September 2006. 70.137.142.172

I completely agree. That was my first thought upon reading Lockyer's page.68.99.176.64 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so biased. Maybe we should delete substantial portions of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.194.214 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Am removing the NPOV Dispute message as no comments or explanations have been made on this Discussion page. The posts below are two years old and concern a much earlier version of the article. RHS (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI comment

[edit]

After reading this trash it is apparent that Lockyer must have posted this article himself. California is going bankrupt and Lockyer and his ilk are the reason. Now his wife is seeking to continue his legacy of irresponsible liberal politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.42 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, though there is dispute about facts, the news reports of Nadia Lockyer's election to Alameda County Board of Supervisors, with about $1.5 Million on contributions from her husband, her substance abuse problems, (admitted by her) the sex tape made with her boyfriend, and the claims of some misconduct, (visiting the boyfriend in jail under the pretext she was his lawyer) all of these things should be included in the article at this point. Also, there are several controversies about Bill Lockyer's conduct in office that are not included. A very large number of no-bid contracts handed out by Lockyer while he was Attorney General, for example. Taking over and settling public interest lawsuits brought against his contributors. Under California law, the Attorney General can simply take over lawsuits brought by activists. When there was a lawsuit brought entirely be non-government entities alleging the voting machines were not secure, Lockyer, who took money from the voting machine manufacturers, then took over the lawsuti and settled it on terms very favorable to the manufacturers. These things and others should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.10.171 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but notice that many of the IP editors here have not provided any references in support of their comments. The talk page is here to develop the article, by providing new links, and discuss the relative importance of such links to the article. Articles on living persons cannot have ANY unsourced potentially libelous statements in them. Adding such comments to a talk page is a disingenuous way to try to slander a person without having to prove the comments. the statement "irresponsible liberal politics" makes it abundantly clear that the posters here are highly biased and are trying to turn this talk page, and the article itself, into an attack piece on Lockyer. I welcome any reliable references for any of these concerns, but i am not happy with anonymous editors just leaving bombs on this page. I could delete the comments, but i think they need to stay to show the level people will stoop to assassinate a persons character. and no, i am not a paid staff person of Lockyer, just a principled WP editor. Oh, on the issue of bankruptcy of the state, i have two words: Proposition 13.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mercurywoodrose = I am glad you are "principled", I hope you did not mean to imply I am not. I went to get one link on the no-bid contracts http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/shine-the-light-on-ags-and-friends/Content?oid=2155170 I did not make the rest of the stuff up by the way, I will get some of that stuff too now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Here is a link no his contributions to his wife's campaign : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-01/meth-charge-for-lockyer-s-wife-imperils-his-ambitions.html Do I have to get the articles that point out she was in rehab WHILE running for Supervisor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Here is a report of Nadia Lockyer being arrested for drug possession and I think child endangerment http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Nadia-Lockyer-charged-drugs-child-abuse-3842926.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC) So, this is a link to a DailyKos column on the voting machine lawsuit having merit, and I will got get one that mentions Lockyer taking money from the same company he settled with http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/19/80825/-Diebold-settles-lawsuit-with-CA-for-fraudulent-claims-about-security-in-e-voting-machines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who provides links here to reliable sources is helping build the article, and WP. anyone who leaves opinions on the talk page without sources is not doing their work properly (not lying, though). I was not implying that any editor here is blatantly unprincipled, or lying. the question is only of reliable sourcing. I added extensive info on Nadia to the section on the supervisors, i have no problem with noting her (or his) dirty laundrey if its notable. I am under no obligation to provide sources for any allegations on a talk page, if i am pointing out there arent any. I AM under an obligation to REMOVE any unsourced allegations from an article, and i do not need to first try to find sources for such. its the SOLE responsibility of any editor to provide sources for any material added to an article, or to provide sources for any alleged statements of fact on a talk page. Otherwise, i could write: "didnt Bill Lockyer torture, murder, and eat a child last year? i saw footage on youtube. someoone should check that out". Dont worry, I know no one here is making stuff up, but thats the problem. there is no way to tell the difference between a lie and an unsourced allegation on its face, which is why we must be so strict here about unsourced BLP info. having ranted away, i do want to thank people for providing links for various issues. I may not check them out myself for relevancy, but someone surely will, and if they are good sources, they can and should be added to the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Tape Story

[edit]

Re: The comments above that mention suppression - there are a number of new articles out about him and his wife that have not been included in the article/page. here are the links: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/22/EDM21NATT3.DTL

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Salacious-Sex-Tape-Swing-in-Lockyer-Scandal-140653983.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/nadia-lockyer-sex-tape_n_1303090.html?ref=san-francisco

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_19991703?source=rss_viewed

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/26/BADO1NC8OV.DTL

This is not an article i normally edit but noticed a significant absence of a lot of information- and perhaps scrubbing is indeed occurring-the lack of completeness is so complete- so I am providing the links for those who regularly contribute or review this article. Because of the nature of these new stories there might also be a need to monitor or place on semi protection etc. 4rousseau (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reliable links. I am not sure how to add them, as i dont usually edit controversial articles, but some mention should appear. ps: as of this date, this talk page has been refactored accurately.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, given the recent news, I will simply add these all as references in the section on her. Section probably should be expanded into an article on her.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.132.26 (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AG Kamala Harris reviewing Lockyer- Chikhani story

[edit]

It seems an important part of the sex tape story, so that aspect should be part of the article.4rousseau (talk)

changed the wording of "declined to file any charges against" to clarify that is regarding Chikhani -- the news reports so far specify only Chikhani, so it is an important clarification.4rousseau (talk)

Revision to address "Peacock" wording and non-NPOV objections

[edit]

I wrote a complete revision of the first version of this page some years ago, but it's obviously undergone considerable revision since then, most recently by various Lockyer detractors after the well-publicized "scandal" reports about his marital problems. As the "peacock" wording objection is now two years old, I'm going to attempt, over the next few weeks, to eliminate subjective wording, both pro and con, as well as to provide respectable citations, as requested, in the hope that both the "peacock" and "neutrality" headers can eventually be eliminated. I should state that as an historian, I certainly don't believe that political office-holders can do no wrong, but I do feel that they often can do good things and a "Neutral Point of View" does not require unmitigated criticism, only a balance of opinion on both their accomplishments and failures. That's a standard I hope to follow in this revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedist1 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of August 5,I'm removing the "peacock" objection placed on this page two years ago. I don't believe there is any unduly laudatory prose in the piece, while there is now an even-handed treatment of many of Lockyer's actions and statements - including criticism of his Justice Department's DNA lab processing, sex-offender database and gun control enforcement; his legal actions against San Francisco's first same-sex marriage licenses, as well as energy corporations accused of price gouging; his personal conflict with other officials like Gray Davis and Elliot Spitzer; and his own politically-damaging remarks about Kenneth Lay, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and even fellow Democrats in the Legislature. I have yet to fully deal with the NPOV objection and to provide source citations requested by an earlier editor.RHS (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Encyclopedist1[reply]

On advice of an editor to "be bold, just do it", I am today removing the NPOV objection placed on this page seven months ago. I would welcome comments from anyone with reasonable objections to what I now consider to be the page's objectivity and adequate sourcing. RHS (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)encyclopedist1[reply]

Nothing on the Attorney General's Office Controversy?

[edit]

Wasn't there a big revelation when he let AG's office that he had doled out something like $125 million in no-bid contracts as AG? This would be of some value. Also, the wife story -- his huge help to her Alameda County Supervisor campaign, other angles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bill Lockyer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Lockyer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Lockyer. 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:

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) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Lockyer. 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:

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) 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Lockyer&oldid=1206914024"