Talk:Troy Newman (activist)

Anon Edits

This page is getting some rather interesting edits from an ip. Keep in mind that if you believe there is a WP:NPOV violation, there is a template to put on the page, and you should discuss it on this talk page. --Rjm656s 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I saw that there were no references for any of the strong claims on this individual, and just requested speedy deletion for this article. I believe this is the correct course of action, per this page Krushia 06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I could have deleted per WP:CSD#G10 with out discussion, I have refrained. I have removed almost the entire contents of the article in order to create a neutral tone. This is not censorship, and I have no problem with re-addition provided everything is cited with reliable references. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that call. This article had a fairly long history and I wasn't sure what to do. I agree with your decision, and invite people to add material again as long as sources are properly cited when doing so. Krushia 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Per WP:BLP I could just delete, so your tag was not wrong. However I think deletion would only end up with a recreation anyway, as the subject is noteworthy. Better to remove the dubious text and start from basics. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

neutrality

The tone of this article, in my opinion, still seems to me to be inclined toward "pushing" what's considered the particular political/philosophical position of its subject. I removed material that I considered unreferenced personal commentary, but overall it still needs work. Reliable referencing is a necessity, especially in a bio of a living person. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In my mind the article has moved somewhat more toward a middle ground, which is a good idea I think. It still needs references to support some of the "stronger" claims being contended here. Because this is a biography of a living person, more care must be taken with sourcing. I'd suggest that the second to last sentence in the article, citing 'Their Blood Cries Out' as its source, should include a referenced quote from the book demonstrating the position being claimed. Keep in mind that unsupported material can be removed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposingviews.com links removed -- October 2010

I have removed several links to opposingviews.com, an opinion website that does not meet either WP:EL or WP:RS. As this is an article about Newman, his quotes listed in the Opposing View column can probably be sourced to his organization's press release or official statement, but other views and comments needs to be sourced to significant mainstream news reporting from publications meeting WP:RS, not columns or articles written by the critics themselves. I understand the discussion over NPOV and balance, but there's no override for proper sourcing, especially for WP:BLPs. Flowanda | Talk 06:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

View on other topics

The section "Views on other topics", begins "Newman believes that the existence of LGBT communities poses a threat to the United States as a whole..." That's sourced to an interview with Newman. I have trouble believing that Newman would use an expression such as "LGBT communities". I suggest that the section be reworded, to convey accurately whatever it was Newman actually said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

VCY America program

@2605:6001:f201:e700:64be:8d3f:8118:15db: @71.170.209.55: Can you tell me where in this hour-long program Newman's views on LGBT people are found? "God's will is that harm be inflicted on these people" vs. "God will inflict harm on these people" is a pretty significant change of meaning, so what does he actually say in the program? I've left 2605's recent change in that regard standing, but did revert "too easy to embrace LGBT statu[t]es" back to "too easy to be LGBT" because the former seems to make less sense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing with a neutral voice and other neutrality issues

I do not recall how I stumbled upon this article, but prior to it coming to my attention a few days ago I had no knowledge of the existence of this subject. What I know of him now is what I have read in this article and what is in the sources cited herein. This article is bloated with unnecessary words, peacock words, vague words and other language covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch (MOS:WTW). This article also pushes the limits of neutrality, as other editors have mentioned on this Talk page long before now and which is something I hope to correct in the coming days. I hope editors who have no interest in this article except to bring it up to proper Wikipedia standards will join me in that goal. It is not a small job and this article needs all the help it can get. However, if you are an editor with a personal, social or political agenda to promote, or if you have an "ownership" attachment to the article, I must gently and kindly ask you to please refrain from editing it. Biased edits will only delay, but will not deter, the efforts of objective editors to improve the article. If that describes you, there are literally millions of Wikipedia articles that require attention, and your talents as an editor are desperately needed in any of them. Please consider how you might contribute to Wikipedia in those articles. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)