Talk:Tommy Tuberville/Archive 1

Archive 1

Negative Material

A reminder of the Wikipedia policy related to information on living persons:

All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

IP user: 72.147.101.254

It is quite obvious that IP user: 72.147.101.254 intention here is to spread negative rumors and hearsay about the Auburn football program and not to improve the biographical information related to Tommy Tuberville. I have removed the poorly sourced negative material, personal opinions and hearsay contributed by 72.147.101.254 --STS01 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire off the field section. The information in this section was highly controversial contested and doesn't belong in this article. --STS01 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User STS01

It is quite obvious that user STS01 is attempting to remove all negative information about Tommy Tubberville as possible. Facts are not 'poorly sourced negative material, personal opinions and hearsay'. These items have all been proven true and even acknowledged by the administration of Auburn University as true and the persons responsible have been reprimanded and/or lost their jobs due to this. If user STS01 does not feel that truth, whether positive or negative belongs in an encyclopedic article, then he/she should not be editing them. The attempt by this obvious Auburn supporter to delete truthful material undermines the purpose of Wikipedia. An obvious attempt to add demafoatory information from a rival fan that is hiding behind an anonymous IP address. The info is true and verifiable STS01 -- don't get your panties in a wad because you can't hide the truth. --the previous 3 unsigned edits were by 65.4.46.203

I do not want to take sides as I do not know what edits in fact you are referring to. However, I have seen unsourced rumors being removed before - I have even removed them in the past. My comment is that if these rumors are indeed factual, then you should have no problem citing several sources. Any unsourced info is removed per wikipedia's own policy. Please abide by the rules. And btw, sign your posts. Also, you should should consider registering an account instead of editing anonymously, as people will be less apt to revert you immediately.
But again, the only requirement is to cite your sources if you indeed have them! otduff (talk/contribs) 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on edit history, IP User 65.4.46.203 is only concerned with adding negative commentary to Wikipedia. If valid sources are found for the information this user is trying to introduce, I suggest that it be posted in a more appropriate article and not in this persons biography. STS01 15:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on edit history, STS01 deleted the sourced material and links to the valid sources that were cited and is surely not one to pass judgement on intent based on some of his contributions. 65.4.46.203

SEC Divisional Championships

There are no mentions of this shared championship on the SEC webpage. In looking at Wikipedia's own webpage on the SEC chanpionship, on divisional ties it states:

Divisional Ties Since the SEC expanded, several times a tie between two or more teams occurred, requiring a tie-break. Below is list of all years and schools involved in which a tie existed. Only years and divisions that resulted in a tie are listed. If no year or division is posted, there was no tie. Schools listed in alphabetical order, * denotes tie-break winner and subsequent division champion.

I think you will find this to be true, but if you can post the source from SECsports.com, I will defer to you. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.200.19 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See this page on secsports.com and then look at the years in question. Notice that several teams have a star by them denoting they are "Western Division Co-Champions". I am going to revert you again. If you disagree again, please post here as to why as even by your own words, you should defer based on the source (SEC themselves and not some wikipedia entry). --otduff ^t/_c 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what OTDuff pointed you to, see this article with the following quote (emphasis mine):

Florida has clinched a share of the Eastern Division championship and the berth in the SEC Championship Game.

However, I guess the clearest description is from the SEC Spring Preview on page 12 of the PDF (page 10 of the printed piece) where you'll find the heading All-Time SEC Divisional Championships. Hope that helps. AUTiger » talk 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Salary

His salary is not notable as a football coach. It immaterial to his biography and encyclopedic content. Salary information is trivial if anything. The only other football coaches I have found with documented salaries in info boxes on Wikipedia are 5 Big 12-South coaches. I say it is just as immaterial to the context of the article in their bios as well. The fact that it is noted in a newspaper story about a potential (yet highly unlikely IMHO) job move does not make it noteworthy. Maybe it would be better integrated into a section about the potential move, but I doubt that would be a good idea either because at this point their is no documented factual information about the move only conjecture from idiotic sportswriters attempting to sell papers and/or gain notoriety. Jasgrider 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

His salary is not relevant to the potential job move. I just cited that article because it reports his most up-to-date salary, as well as incentives. The salary is not just mentioned in that article, but mentioned in these as well: [1] , [2], [3], [4], and a few of these. I believe readers would be interested in a coach’s salary as it gives an idea as to how the coach is rewarded. If the salary stays, then I believe it should be integrated into the article as well, wherever his Auburn career is mentioned. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think salary info in the coach box would be a good idea, but it would be hard to give the same comparison. We may not be able to get "base salary" information for a coach and what would "base salary" information mean? Including the information in the text, perhaps when they start the position, would be good. Maybe in the intro? "Tuberville became the head coach at Alabama on January 15, 2999 signing a contract worth $987 billion including $923 in incentives.{cite}" It's important, relevant and informative and should be included as long as it is verifiable. MECU≈talk 19:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think salary can definitely be a relevant issue, since its a business transaction that explains the value placed on an individual's talents (particularly in this field); at the same time I couldn't see it as being necessary for an infobox, especially since private schools aren't required to release that information. --Bobak 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Salary is definitely notable these days as it is a key part of the college athletics financial arms race. Coaches' salaries have been rising at a meteoric rate ever since the $1M barrier was broken by Bobby Bowden in 1995[5] and not the least after Alabama desperately threw $32M at Saban[6] to get him to Tuscaloosa. As the vast majority of these individuals are employees of public institutions, there is definitely an interest (and right) to know how much money is spent on them; USAToday even did a huge feature on coaches salaries last year.[7] There is no denying that college sports, particularly football, is big business and the financial details of that business are of interest, to the general public[8] as well as Congress regarding their non-profit status.[9] There's no reason why sourced salary info, if available, shouldn't be a part of every coach's article. AUTiger » talk 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that makes sense. I undid my edit from this morning and put the salary info back into the profile. I might work on putting the rest of the salary info into at least the SEC coaches' bios later. Thanks for the input everybody! Jasgrider 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Texas A&M Rumors

This is a bit preemptive, but should we go ahead and request that anonymous editors not be able to edit this article until after either he signs an extension with Auburn or makes some other move? I seems that leaving it open to anonymous editing leaves open the invitation to post a lot of unsubstantiated rumors and general misinformation that get reported as fact if someone is not on the ball about verifying or reverting. This is probably way out in left field for wikipedia, but it was just a thought. Jasgrider 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not out in left field at all. I made a semi-protection request to a specific admin a little while ago, but it doesn't look like he's gotten it yet. There is a general noticeboard to request protection, but depending on the admin who reviews the request, there's a good chance they wouldn't see the level of IP vandalism as worthy of protection yet. For the moment, those of us watching the article should deal with the rumormongers and vandals. AUTiger » talk 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There have only been 5-6 vandals (including those adding rumors) on the Dennis Franchione page. I added a note in the edit space of that article, so maybe we can add a similar note on this article to ease up the vandalism a bit. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The commented note is not a bad idea, although I disagree with the "any link will do" part; we do prefer reliable sources. AUTiger » talk 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely need reliable sources. I was actually referring to how the contributor can just add the link to the source and not worry about the citation format, so experienced editors can take the pain of properly citing the source by using the reference format. I just fixed the comment. How about we add the following comment to the article: <!----DO NOT ADD INFORMATION WITHOUT CITING A RELIABLE SOURCE. ADDITIONS WITHOUT CITATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL.----> BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good; I added it at the top of the article and the top of the Bio section.AUTiger » talk 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumors are published in newspapers every day. That does not make this fact. It's a rumor about a rumored coaching posistion. Hardly worthy of inclusion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STS01 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There is nothing wrong with including these rumors, just as long as they are verifiable. Wikipedia's purpose is to report what third-party sources are saying. In this case, we're not reporting what the tabloids such as The National Enquirer are saying, but what several newspapers/sports websites are. We should have the reader form their own opinions by presenting information in accordance with WP:NPOV. We should say that Texas A&M is looking at hiring Tuberville, but also state that it's a rumor, citing the sources that say so. Besides, no where in WP:NOT or WP:V does it state that verifiable rumors are not allowed in articles. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be kind of a moot point now: | Tommy Tuberville declared Monday that he will remain Auburn's football coach "as long as they want us here.". I seriously doubt that Auburn would be so stupid as to run the man off. :) Jasgrider (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think he would leave Auburn for A&M; if he were to make a move, I think he would go to Arkansas (his home state) to replace Houston Nutt, if the position becomes available. That's just my opinion. You seriously doubting whether Auburn would actually let Tuberville go is also an opinion. We should not let our opinions interfere with how we write these articles, as it would violate WP:NPOV. We should present all information fairly so readers can get a clear picture. Since Tuberville stated yesterday that he's going to remain at Auburn until they fire him, I think it would be best to add to the article something along the lines of "Although rumors surfaced about Tuberville being a possible candidate for the coaching position at Texas A&M, Tuberville stated that he will stay at Auburn until dismissed". Hopefully, adding this will end the edit war that was going on for the past few days. I'd also like to add that some coaches don't keep a firm word about staying at a certain school. Dennis Franchione easily comes to mind — in 2003, even after agreeing to a contract extension at Bama, he suddenly left for the coaching position at A&M. However, I'm not sure if Tuberville would betray Auburn like that. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully the jerkbag esteemed anonymous editor from the AT&T DSL network in Birmingham will stop adding the same information in to the article. :) Jasgrider (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating Article

How do you get the protection to update the articles? I simply want to change the "@" to a "W" in his bowl outcome data box. This is a simple error, but I'd like to get past the protection problems to fix simple things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsrice (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Added JetGate and mention of 'bad' losses

Added in mention of Tuberville's reputation for losing games he should win, as well as 'JetGate', Auburn's attempt to court Bobby Petrino to replace him in 2003. Tuberville does indeed have a reputation for winning big games. I'm sure an Auburn fan with moderator privileges will come back and delete my additions, but if you are going tell the story of Tuberville's career at Auburn, you can't just pick the parts that make him sound good, you have to pick everything. Wikipedia is supposed to be about about factual content, not putting a positive spin on the situation.

Again, I have no doubt that an Auburn fan with mod privileges will come behind me and remove all these edits, but if they do, they will be putting their affection for Auburn and Tuberville, ahead of doing their job properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.8.85 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems pointless to add information about bad losses to his bio. Are you planning on going into all coaches' pages and the same information? I guess I'll see your posts over at Nick Saban's page next to talk about the same issue (ask him about losing to La. Monroe in 2007 or losing to UAB while at LSU). Don't forget to make your way to Pete Carroll's page for the Stanford and Oregon State updates =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.203.160.254 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Time For Tuberville To Go

I'd hire David Cutliff from Duke as the head coach and get Patrick Nix whose at Miami (FL) has offensive coordinator. Tuberville currently has a 13-8 record over the last two years, the offensive has been pathetic, even with the spread offense guru ,Tony Franklin. The strong suit the defense has just given up trying with no offense. They've had the lead in all of their last 3 losses at half. Theirfore its coaching for the fact their losing. The other teams make adjustments and shut down the offense cause we are predictable on playcalls. We run inside the tackles or a sweep toss or we throw a WR Screen,RB Screen, Quick Slant, or Hook Patterns. Nothing deep so they stack the box on us and shut down the run. Its simple go deep to back teams off the line to open the running game up in the second half. They dont take chances with the lead ,so the punt over and over tiring out the defense allowing teams to take the lead and win. They need to have Neil Caudle at QB for the rest of the year.Burns would work out of the triple option but he doesnt have the vision to run the spread for when he has to pass it.

Rumor of Firing on December 3, 2008

Until Auburn University has officially announced that it has indeed fired Tommy Tuberville, the article should reflect that he is still the head coach. There is a still a chance that his firing is a rumor. Wikipedia is not for rumors. Dennibr (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is it?

"Tuberville is infamous at Ole Miss" or "leaving some upset fans at Ole Miss"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.183.183 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tommy Tuberville. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105231800/http://www.texastech.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/tuberville_tommy00.html to http://www.texastech.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/tuberville_tommy00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Does a paragraph abruptly inserted about Tuberville's Wife belong?

I am thinking that since this article is about Tuberville, not his wife, the negative material on the wife should be deleted, as also unsourced derogatory material should be deleted from the article. Saying that he has a reputation for . . . [something negative] seems to me a violation of BLP. And how would you reliably support what his reputation is? It is the nature of the game to lose some games to what are considered "inferior teams." It is difficult to substantiate a contrary "should." Would you survey 100 sports writers and poll them? I deleted unsourced material. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC))

Jetgate

Some material on Jetgate was removed due to lack of citations. I have restored it, this time with citations. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Content sourced to InsideClimate News should be restored

InsideClimate News is clearly a RS, having won a Pulitzer and being generally well-regarded among journalists. The same edit that removed the source also included language that left it unclear to readers whether "experts" believe climate change exists and will have any impact on humans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near I believe the current wording about Tuberville's climate denial goes against our WP:FRINGE guideline. The reason Tuberville is not concerned about climate change, is that he rejects the science. Our fringe policy indicates that the mainstream idea must be mentioned when a pseudoscientific idea is presented. I know in the US there is a widespread rejection of science among politicians, that does not mean we should be less adamant in putting these ideas in context. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the original comment before. I don't think it makes sense to include the views of scientists here: even if we accept as fact the idea that every "expert" believes in climate change, putting their views in this article would be irrelevant and would most likely constitute synthesis. And Femke, I think you're misinterpreting WP:FRINGE - it doesn't apply to articles about people who hold these supposedly fringe beliefs. Otherwise every article about a devout Christian would have to contain a disclaimer like "scientists believe that the miracles attributed to Jesus are impossible", etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, fringe does apply to people, see WP:BLPFRINGE. We should definitely be careful in how to describe it, and I don't agree with previous descriptions that felt too much like an attack. Of course we accept that every expert believes in climate change, like we accept on Wikipedia that the earth isn't flat. We wouldn't do synthesis, as inside climate News has made this link to science rejection for us. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure - if there's actual criticism of Tuberville for his climate change views, that should be included in the article, as noted in the BLPFRINGE guideline. But just including a comment about how scientists believe in climate change would be synthesis, and is not advocated by that guideline. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, glad that we agree then? The InsideClimate news reports on his climate denial. Why did you undo my edit reporting on this if you do believe that we should include information from reliable sources on this topic giving scientific context? The current wording implies that his statement "won't change enough in the next 400 years to affect anybody" has some factual basis, by not putting it into the context of science dismissal. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Rejects the consensus is the usual wording for articles on climate change deniers. There is nothing wrong with that wording.
• Dismisses the science fits too, maybe it is even better since "rejects" almost sounds as if he were competent enough to actually ponder any facts.
• Is not concerned about is far too soft on his fringe position.

saying that the global climate "won't change enough in the next 400 years to affect anybody" - the "saying" should be "claiming" since it is an untruth obvious to anybody familiar with the subject. And of course InsideClimate is a reliable source. Its "bias" is actually a huge point in their favor. A source which is not biased in favor of science would be unreliable.

Any attempt to portray anti-science people like this guy "fairly", that is, with WP:FALSEBALANCE, will attract more science-minded users who counter the attempt. Wikipedia will not help pseudoscience fans spread their disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's the article in question, and here is essentially the full extent of what it says about Tuberville's views: Tuberville "denies the science of climate change, citing his religious belief that God controls the climate." Now, I think that's a poor explanation of Tuberville's stance (they're presumably referring to this interview, also cited in the Wikipedia article, where he does say that only God controls the climate, but it's kind of a flippant comment before he gets into a more serious discussion such as noting that China puts out more emissions than the U.S. does). If you really want to, we could attribute the criticism of "denying the science" to InsideClimate News, but I don't think it makes sense to put that in Wikipedia's voice, for reasons I explained earlier. Hob Gadling - I think you're giving your biases away by worrying that some wording is "too soft" on the subject. Our job is not to be hard or soft or anyone - it's to explain things neutrally. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The quoted text in the article is also a form of climate denial, it's not only the comment he made about God. People now are experiencing the effects of climate change, as recorded by scientist from loads of different disciplines around the world. Explaining things neutrally are Wikipedia does not mean giving equal credit to one party or another, but to give most credit to reliable sources and not to conspiracy theories. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of any of that, but let me just note that "conspiracy theory" seems to be one of those terms that, at this point in time, has lost all meaning. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Adhering to WP:FRINGE is not "biases". Or, if it is, ask User:Guy Macon to explain what sort of bias it is. Climate change denial is pseudoscience, but lots of people do not know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As Hob Gadling notes, Tuberville has gone on the record claiming that experts say the global climate "won't change enough in the next 400 years to affect anybody". This is a flat-out lie, and trying to sugarcoat that is not what we do. (Remember that the "neutral" in NPOV doesn't mean "say one good thing for each bad thing". It means we accurately report upon and summarize what the reliable sources say.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources said it was a lie? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes: any peer-reviewed source on climate change that came out over last twenty years. You chose which one. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be synthesis. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's calling a blue sky blue. XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What Tuberville is quoted as saying is surely incorrect and definitely opposed to the scientific understanding of the subject. I'm not sure it is a lie, per se, because it is unclear to me whether Tuberville is educated enough on the subject to know what he is saying is incorrect. At least one definition (St. Augustine's, I think?) of "lie" is that you have to have intent for a statement to be a lie. The current wording indicates that Tuberville dismisses climate science. I think that's pretty clear. jps (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a choice: either add a refutation of Tuberville's untruth or delete it. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to spread disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Arguably, the explanation that it is a dismissal of climate science is a refutation. But this may also be an undue focus on one quote as well. jps (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a sort of refutation of his general position, but not a refutation of his crazy 400-years claim. If we remove the 400-years claim, the article will be WP:FRINGE compatible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's do that. It's always better to be vague when discussing positions in BLPs anyway. jps (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - it feels strange to try to explain Wikipedia to a long-time editor such as yourself, but if someone makes a statement that you think is false, and that statement is notable and relevant to that person (as it is here, since he is a political candidate), then we are allowed and maybe even obligated to include that statement. And we are under no obligation to try to refute this supposedly incorrect statement, although of course we can include any notable criticisms of it. I encourage you to read all the relevant guidelines. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think all of our guidelines on pseudoscience are quite clear. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Saying Tuberville says A, but organisation X disagrees, would lead to a false balance, as we would give equal weight to pseudoscience and actual science. Maybe you are not aware to what extend climate denial is a pseudoscience, which is understandable given the state of US media. Do you undescribeunderscribe the fact that climate denial is a pseudoscience? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

None of that guideline applies to this article, since this not an article about a theory but about a politician. I wish the guideline were a little more explicit about this, but I think the meaning is clear. Again, if this were not the case, then every article about a religious person would have to include some disclaimer like "these views are rejected by scientists", etc. (And I have no idea what "undescribe" means.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Religious belief on its own is not pseudoscience and has never been understood that way per my experience with applications of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Edit: Clarification: Religious belief is not pseudoscience unless it makes claims that relate to science. I.e. a religious person is not engaging in pseudoscience if they say God exists, but they are if they say the Earth is 10,000 years old. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to biographies has been roundly rejected by consensus many times over. In fact, we have an entire subsection of the guideline that deals explicitly with biographies: WP:FRINGEBLPs. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument about religious figures is more than a little precious. In fact, we do have a lot of articles on religious people who argue in favor of miracles being real and we do treat those claims in the same way we treat them elsewhere in the encyclopedia. The trick is, of course, that not every religious person (not even a large minority of them!) is making these claims in a prominent way. jps (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FRINGEBLP has already been covered here, and it doesn't really impact this particular discussion, even if you think that believing that the weather 400 years from now will be the same as it is now is a discredited "fringe theory". The question, I think - though I confess I'm not totally sure what we're arguing about - is whether InsideClimate News' description of Tuberville as "den[ying] the science of climate change" should be in their voice or Wikipedia's, assuming it's included at all. I think it's safest, and most neutral, to put it in their voice. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No, WP:FRINGE is relevant and it is clear that the consensus of the editors here agrees that this is the case. If you think that you need a wider argument about this, feel free to start a WP:RfC, but seeing many similar ones in the past I would warn you it's likely a waste of time. As InsideClimate News' description is pretty much a fact and not an opinion, there is no real problem with putting it in Wikipedia's voice. jps (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a strong consensus here on what the article should say, but there certainly is a consensus that Tuberville is wrong about climate change. So, fine - the current wording seems reasonable, given that. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus I was referring to was the idea that whatever wording we ultimately choose, it should be consistent with WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes to describing Tuberville's view on climate change as fringe. Yes to citing mainstream sources such as the Montgomery Advertiser (USA network) or the Daily Mountain Eagle.

No to citing InsideClimate News, which, while generally reliable on facts is also highly biased as to what facts it includes and what facts it excludes. For example. nowhere in the InsideClimate News hit piece on Tuberville does it mention that both Tuberville and his democratic opponent Jones oppose the Green New Deal sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Markey.

No to describing views such as "God controls the climate" as pseudoscience. Religion is not pseudoscience, and it is perfectly possible to believe every standard scientific theory while still believing that God is somehow behind it all.

From[10]:

On climate change, Tuberville said is first thought on climate change is that "there is one person that changes climate in this country and that is God." Even with gas and coal burning, "we are a very small part of that. Look at China," where he said the Chinese have 2,000 coal fired plants - and growing - while the U.S. has 40 or 50. He said coal, mining and gas emissions are not the problem.

"We don't have climate change here," he said. "You might have a little bit of change. It might change a little bit over the years." He said polar caps have been melting for years, which is not a change. "You do have a little bit change of weather. But somebody needs to prove to me that it is because we are burning coal or we have cars driving on the streets." He said experts indicate the situation "won't change enough in the next 400 years to affect anybody. But it is a talking point on the left that gives them an opportunity to scream and yell that this country is not going to last but 12 more years."

The bit about us not having climate change is pure pseudoscience. So is the bit about burning coal and driving cars causing climate change being unproven.

The opinion that it is stupid to have a treaty that severely restricts US CO2 emissions while allowing China to have even greater increases isn't pseudoscience. It is a legitimate political view.[11][12] It may be wrong, but it is not pseudoscience.

When Tuberville criticizes claims that "this country is not going to last but 12 more years" he is arguing against pseudoscience.[13][14][15][16][17][18] (his 400 year figure is really dubious, though).

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. InsideClimate News does seem like a biased source, and I wish there was a ruling on them on WP:RSP. Tuberville's quote that "We don't have climate change" seems like just a misstatement, and that what he meant was something like "We don't have substantial climate change", given what he said right after that. On the other hand, the article's current wording ("He dismisses the science of climate change, saying that the global climate 'won't change enough in the next 400 years to affect anybody'") seems like a reasonable compromise - it neatly summarizes both Tuberville's views and those of the supposed scientific consensus. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tuberville-tommy.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Identifying Tuberville as a former player

Should Tuberville be identified in the lede as a former player? He never played professionally and there's only one sentence in the entire article dedicated to his college playing days. Bluerules (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point - I just removed "former player". Korny O'Near (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Bluerules (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

maybe identify him as a "college player" or something like that?

Proposed delaying inauguration

Tommy Tuberville proposed delaying Biden's presidential inauguration until Covid was "behind us", an unconstitutional proposal for which he was widely criticized - e.g. [19] Can someone add it to the article since it has extended protection? [I've been here for years but apparently never got to 500 edits] Reyne2 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that he was widely criticized for it? Korny O'Near (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I watched the video and the statement was in my opinion clearly willfully misinterpreted. How widely covered is it, you need RSs for stuff. DemonDays64 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

On January 13, 2021, Tuberville questioned the timing of the inauguration on January 20.

“We probably could have had a swearing-in and inauguration later after we got this virus behind us a little bit. Again, we’re talking about Washington, D.C.,” Tuberville said.

However, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the inauguration and swearing-in of a new President take place on January 20th. It wasn’t clear if Tuberville was aware of that during the interview. https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/sen-tommy-tuberville-says-presidents-impeachment-makes-no-sense/ Khcampbell1 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, that's a verbatim quote from the news article, which would be plagiarism. More importantly, though, I don't see evidence that this off-the-cuff comment is notable enough for inclusion. There have been massive violations of the constitution by U.S. politicians (justified or not) over the last year or so - most notably the 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble - so some politician talking theoretically about another violation is not necessarily noteworthy. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Electoral Objection in Lede

It notes in the lede that Sen. Tommy Tuberville objected to the electoral votes for the 2020 election. Should this be in the lede? I checked the articles of Barbara Boxer and Pramila Jayapal and their electoral college objection in 2004 and 2016, respectively, are not noted in the ledes of their articles but are discussed in the body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GloriousPede (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Tuberville official portrait

How come we have reverted back to his first portrait when he has an updated one 76.165.76.72 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)