Talk:Thom Tillis/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Thom Tillis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hand Washing

I think the guy is an idiot, and I am extremely biased, so I don't want to be the one to write it, but it seems that the Senator's hypocritical and idiotic views on hand washing should probably be in here somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.222.246 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Appel reference

I'm reverting this edit, which is dubiously sourced and remarkably similar to this edit which was confirmed to be false.CFredkin (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed contet

I removed content on the basis that this is a biography of Tillis, and in it we should not enumerate bills and initiatives taken in the house. There are articles about these bills and subjects in which that material can be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

numerous POV edits with false accusations

CFredkin boldly and wrongfully removed properly sourced content

the sourced section calling it "unreliable source". ridiculous. This source is used by huge media. so it is pure sounds like POV

"Nearly $5 million of campaign money was collected by 'Carolina Rising', a 501(c)(4) group organized by Dallas Woodhouse, $4.8 million of it were from a single anonymous donor. Most of it went to advertsisements by Crossroads Media."Robert Maguire (20 October 2015). "Political nonprofit spent nearly 100 percent of funds to elect Tillis in '14". The Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved 23 October 2015.

If this content is significant, it will be mentioned by a reliable secondary source. This is a WP:BLP. We need to use high quality sources.CFredkin (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, this statement is about the activities of a PAC, not Tillis.CFredkin (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

a verbatim quote from a source here that gives context calling it "superfluous, not in source" which is false.

This statement is not supported by the source. Content in Wikipedia needs to be supported by the source(s) provided.CFredkin (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) This is a WP:BLP. The burden is on you to provide sourcing when you add or restore content.CFredkin (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Worse, at the same time he restored a claim by a blog (!) sourced by a dead link (!), he removed the flag (!), but didnt provide a live link, so the claim "what was happened was allowed" which is highly disputed and contrary to what's in teh media, cannot even be checked.

Cfredkin you should revert yourself. among the many edits I made up to clean this article you pick out the one you " disagree" with. use a proper source, and dont stand in the way of WP:RS claims please.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here....CFredkin (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

no idea ? CFredkin, please learn how to identify sources. look up the source you call unreliable , used by NYTimes, Washington Post etc. Your argument holds no water. as you say "content in Wikipedia needs to be supported by the source(s) provided" I am restoring verbatim quote from a source here you deleted for absolutely no discernible reason.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That statement is not included in the source provided. Also, it's irrelevant to this BLP. Tillis worked in the IT consulting branch of PWC, not the auditing branch.CFredkin (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

KKK membership

Thom Tillis has been found to be a member of the KKK, outed by Anonymous. Reference to this in his Wikipedia page is not an act of vandalism as some have suggested, but merely an addition of valid and useful information to his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LydiaGold (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources for the content you're adding are not WP:reliable.CFredkin (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur. This is not WP:reliable nor is it even ethical to publish by the standards of basic journalism. Any media outlet reporting on bare accusations like this is not worthy of a reference.Encycjwp (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The reference being used is not a reliable source, especially for such a serious claim about a living person. If it's true, then wait for a respected news organization to confirm his membership. APK whisper in my ear 20:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. APK whisper in my ear 07:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe there are now numerous articles by reliable news sources discussing that Thom Tillis has been ACCUSED of being a KKK member, but that Thom Tillis simply denies the accusations without further elaboration. Given the breadth of news coverage, I think this may be worth of being entered into the article. There may be people coming to the article because they have heard the accusation, and would like to see Thom's rebuttal as reported in reliable news sources. I'm going to Be Bold and add it in. Fieari (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand you were bold, but I've reverted because there's no consensus to add a such a libelous claim to his article, especially since Anonymous denied naming him. What breadth of news coverage are you referring to discussing these claims? APK whisper in my ear 05:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We would basically be rewarding the random Twitter user who made this unsubstantiated claim by adding this to his and the other politician's articles. It's the very definition of mudslinging and that's not something we should be a part of, especially on a BLP. Tomorrow when Anonymous releases the names of people they claim to be KKK members, you can count on the major media organizations reporting on it. If that happens and Tillis or other politicians are mentioned, then we can go from there. But right now, it's a nasty internet rumor started by one person that doesn't belong on these people's articles. APK whisper in my ear 05:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thom Tillis. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

Someone jumped the gun on the incident at the run. The Senator issued a video that said he simply overheated, and that CPR was not necessary. He was responding before they transported him. 24.0.59.26 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

LGBTQ rights Section Edit

I propose changing the line:

Tillis opposes marriage equality and legal protections against discriminating against LGBTQ individuals.

to read

Tillis opposes same-sex marriage and legal protections against discriminating against LGBTQ individuals.

No political statement here. Just changing to 'marriage equality' to 'same-sex marriage' is consistent with the article linked to (Same-sex marriage) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.36.177 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content sourced to InsideClimate News and NYT

I see no justification for removing RS content sourced to InsideClimate News and NYT. The InsideClimate News is even attributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry- I forgot to include explanation- the NYT cite is an opinion blog and a statement about something being "relatively unique" is hardly encyclopedie. The ICN stuff is just unneccesary- no need to include one organization's opinion about Tillis's climate positions.Tchouppy (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the content as well as additional content removed from the lead. -- Calidum 16:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I support the restoration of the content from ICN. It's not merely an organization, but rather a well-respected news outlet that won a Pulitzer in 2013. See InsideClimate News for more. The other issues I haven't looked at too deeply, and so will refrain from commenting on in this moment. Jlevi (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

addition of future "senior" senator

The reason that I added the sentence saying that Tillis would become the senior senator is because there were many wikipedia articles in the run up to the 2020 senate elections (some even went back to 2019) that had said a similar thing, such as for Marsha Blackburn and Jerry Moran prior to the 2021 inauguartion. The main reason i added the change was for consistency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add a header with new threads, and sign your posts.

As I explained on your talk page, this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't know that this will happen. Tillis might not still be in office: he could die, or resign, or be impeached. Or Burr could change his mind and not retire. And it certainly is not correct that this would happen on "January 3, 2021" as you claimed twice, and as user:420Prince1012 did once. The two of you similarly made the same crystalball edit about becoming the senior senator to Tommy Tuberville three times, ... you're not using both accounts or coordinating with the other user, are you?

If other articles have (or had) similar issues with WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions, that's a problem with those articles, not justification to introduce problems to this article. Even if there had not been a problem with the edit, consistency is not a very strong argument to make. See WP:OTHER.

And please read WP:BRD. On both articles you should have discussed the edit the first time you were undone (by user:AlsoWukai on both articles). Meters (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)