Jump to content

Talk:Diane Black

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

Racist e-mail

[edit]

I have removed, twice now, a large paragraph with a bunch of quotes to one moment on one source, CNN. This issue is adequately covered now on this WP:BLP. To make half of this article about one incident by a staffer violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. -->David Shankbone 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This event made world news, not just local or national - so the weight of adding two African American experts opinions on the matter is warranted. You are removing the only black opinion offered on an attack on blacks. Severely POV on your part. Scribner (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel strongly, tag the article but don't continue with edit warring. We'll seek consensus from other editors if need be. Scribner (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a staffer, not the subject of the article, and we hardly need 3 paragraphs of "expert" analysis to tell us that was a disgusting thing for the staffer to do. WP:UNDUE definitely applies here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is over Senator Black's response, not the email itself. You removed information that was never being disputed. Scribner (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC
You've removed the only black opinion in a racial attack on blacks. At the very least the first of the three paragraphs should be re-added. Scribner (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Racist staffer was idiot. Racist staffer was reprimanded. Where's there a story here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that a reprimand isn't a strong enough action. The staffer should have been fired. The TN GOP has a history of racism, that's why this gains more importance than a singular event. To remove the only opinion offered by black about an attack on blacks is wholesale POV.
Let's consider at least this addition:
CNN's AMERICAN MORNING covered the email controversy, interviewing an African American sociologist and a political strategist. Michael Eric Dyson is a sociology professor at Georgetown University and Ron Christie, a former V.P. Cheney aide, is a Republican strategist. Both men agreed Sherri Goforth should be terminated.[1] Scribner (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But who cares if these people think she should have been fired? Wikipedia doesn't try to advocate proper employer-employee relations. This is also POV-pushing, since you aren't arguing that there are many people who think she should not be fired. You just want it stated she should be fired. That's not how we do things on here. -->David Shankbone 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: we have a slow news day, so we'll toss up a couple of talking heads to make everyone feel good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To omit expert opinions on this, particularly since your censoring the only black opinion on a racial attack on black is wholesale POV. Scribner (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject of the article had sent out that email, I'd say you were completely justified in putting it in. But she told her employee that she did the wrong thing, so as far as Diane Black's article is concerned, end of story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of Jon Stewart's "Senior Black Correspondent" who weighs in on behalf of the African-American community. Funny for the Daily Show; inappropriate for Wikipedia. -->David Shankbone 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...end of story." Hardly, maybe the end of your association with the story. I'll re-add the first paragraph tomorrow and remove the tag. Scribner (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding material that two editors have already stated should not be added would be going against consensus, will be removed, and may cause you to be blocked. This just is not worth it. -->David Shankbone 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If doing the right thing gets me blocked, I need to be blocked. If this needs to go to mediation, then that's what will happen. Scribner (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. --Tom (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the POV tag I placed a few day ago. The section seems adequate at this point. Scribner (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you will be blocked soon as you wanted. --Tom (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're tagging a section that has gained consensus of three editors, one an administrator. You haven't stated your objection to the section other than to repeatedly place a POV tag on it and hope for me being blocked. What's your objection to the section? Scribner (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I believe I am reverting to the version per the above discussion. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since our consensus another incident occurred with a Tennessee staffer who did get fired, and this event made international news...all in a matter of a couple of days. You still haven't stated any objection to any version. Scribner (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do others think? I would be happy to defer to them, but it seems that consensus is not with you. I very well could be wrong, but why not let others chime in. We are not the news and also there has to be due weight given and NPOV. To say this is some international story seems like a stretch. Anyways, hopefully more editors will intevene since we seem to not agree. Maybe we should post the section in here and then craft something that reaches consensus? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This incident did make news in Australia and the UK, so yes it's international, like it or not, that's not debatable. We'll leave it like it is for now. You and David Shankbone seem oddly close on wiki...couldn't help but wonder how you found this event. Scribner (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ AMERICAN MORNING

Political beliefs

[edit]

I removed some questionable material about some aborted meeting, ect. Maybe if a RS says she is pro or con gay marriage, that would be more appropriate. --Tom (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diane and I moved from Baltimore, Maryland to Nashville, Tennessee in July of 1986 as I joined the faculty of Vanderbilt University. Diane attended Belmont after we moved here and graduated in 1991 with her BS in Nursing. The statement that we moved to Tennessee so she could attend Belmont is not correct and we did not relocate in 1985 as stated.

As a second issue, Diane's staffer who forwarded the Presdient Obama email is not a racist. She forwarded an email that was circulating among staffers at the legislature. Although a mistake the assistant is by no definition a racist and she was disciplined as required by Human Resources policies at the legislature. Although I respect the right of individuals to express opinions I suspect none of the individuals expressing such harsh opinions have ever met Diane or her assistant. Opinions are not necessarily facts and I appreciate the narrative shown that has attempted to at least place this incident into a factual context.

Dave Black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.11.123 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Net Worth

[edit]

I'd like to move Black's net worth from the career section into the Personal section. Any objections? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that was the right move. i have no idea why the IP reverted you. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reformatting and edits

[edit]

I've made a series of edits to give the article a more traditional format, remove POV section headings for 2-3 sentences, remove adjectives and undue weight given to two political blogs that criticized Black for the Obama incident. An IP has reverted one of my edits and left a note accusing me of owning the article. Therefore I'm calling on any prior editors such as USER:David Shankbone, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Scribner and User:Jytdog etc. to please examine the article in its current state and make neutral changes as needed. Thanking you in advance. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Diane Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Chairman

[edit]

Is she still the acting Chairman? Or has she been given the job officially now that Price has left Congress? 107.145.77.108 (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diane Black. 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) 03:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change the Subject documentary

[edit]

My attempt to add the documentary Change the Subject as a source regarding Black opposing the Library of Congress (LOC) decision to stop using the term "illegal aliens" has been reverted, on the grounds it was made by the college students involved in the efforts to change the term: reversion here [1]]. Yes, the film was made by college students, but it was published by the Dartmouth Digital Library Program. Do you not think that Dartmouth, an Ivy League college, would have an oversight or fact-checking process before they'd publish something? More importantly, what the video was backing up was easily verifiable and not taken out of context. Around the 32 minute mark of the film, footage of Black appearing on Blaze Media is shown, where she clearly cites the LOC using the term since the 'early 1900s' as justification for not changing it. The documentary subsequently points out her statement is factually inaccurate, as a version of the term was first introduced in 1980 and modified to its current format in 1993. While the film itself obviously has an agenda, I don't see how that specific coverage could be considered unreliable or biased. It's very straightforward. And wouldn't the documentary itself be considered secondary coverage of Black's inaccurate comments? (I understand it's not secondary coverage of the efforts to change the term, but that's not what it was sourced for.) For more background information there's an entire Wikipedia article on the subject of changing the term at the LOC - Illegal aliens (Library of Congress Subject Heading). Damien Linnane (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to demonstrate WP:DUE is to cite reliable secondary sources (e.g. news sources) that covered her views on this subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for sources, and I've inadvertently found there's actually a considerable amount of mainstream news coverage of the documentary. I think there's more than enough to create an article about the documentary itself. If the documentary was so notable it had its own article, would that change your feelings about it being cited? While there's no shortage of news coverage of Black attacking the name change, I think it's unlikely a news source picked up on the fact she was factually inaccurate about the usage of the term. The documentary obviously spent a lot more time researching the history of the term than a journalist writing a short news piece would have. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diane_Black&oldid=1257160869"