Talk:Don Siegelman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
[edit] NPOV?
Did Siegelman's campaign staff write this? This article has some serious NPOV problems. I don't have time to do any rewrites myself, but I would look at the following:
1) The 2002 election "scandal" is only being told here from Siegelman's point of view. It's been a while, so I can't remember it exactly, but it seems like most people thought Riley rightfully won the election. I think something mentioning the other side of the story is needed.
2) A large part of lottery opposition was a feeling that the income from the lottery wouldn't support the programs that were to be funded by the lottery, resulting in the threat of a tax increase to cover the difference (and Alabamians HATE tax increases, as Riley found out). There were a lot of people simply opposed to the lottery for economic reasons; they weren't all "religiously motivated."
3) Siegelman did accomplish a lot as governor, but if you say "Siegelman" to the average Alabamian, they think of the lottery initiative (which is a positive thing if you're pro-Siegelman, negative if you're against him), or his legal indictments. For better or for worse, he's really not remembered first and foremost for education and economy; that's a tag applied more often to Riley. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.180.19.84 (talk • contribs).
- Regarding the 2002 election, the same wording had been used on the Bob Riley (Alabama) article, which I had to rewrite yesterday. I think I've toned down the opinionated tone, but I have not changed the facts as they were stated. If these facts are in error, please let me know and/or point to a good reference. I moved that section further down and I'll go back in re-read for conjecture. Thanks for the heads up. --Dystopos 03:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's much better. Like I said, the main thing was the tone that made it sound like Siegelman was completely robbed, when in fact there was no where near the level of controversy. The new version reads much better.
- Thanks. By the way, the Riley article prompted a brief edit skirmish and resulted in the creation of a new article, Alabama gubernatorial election, 2002, which you might want to look at. --Dystopos 14:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's much better. Like I said, the main thing was the tone that made it sound like Siegelman was completely robbed, when in fact there was no where near the level of controversy. The new version reads much better.
[edit] NPOV and the Canary issue
I want to raise an issue with the section on Leura Garrett Canary. She may have had to recuse herself from the case due to the conflict of interest, but you make it seem as if she was part of a grand conspiracy, which poses a problem with the NPOV rule as I read it. First off, I don't think she received "widespread criticism" about her conflict of interest, and calling the Business Council of Alabama a Riley ally seems problematic as well. It might be best to say that BCA endorsed him. And finally, the sentence "The case went to trial in early May 2006 with Canary's subordinates prosecuting it." is unnecessary other than to make it seem like Canary had it out for Siegelman. I don't know if you are an avid fan of Siegelman, but toning that paragraph down would make the article more balanced and not pose a NPOV problem.--Bamanative 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
