Talk:Kyle Biedermann

Controversy section

I have reverted these recent additions as BLP violations: they are not neutrally worded (e.g. "Islamophobic Questionnaire") and probably constitute undue weight for the article. The questionnaire was already mentioned in the article - I would not object to that being expanded, but it would need to be neutrally worded and of appropriate length. It would be best to discuss it here first and work out suitable wording. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the comments. I realized after I clicked Undo that we should have discussed beforehand. Sorry about that. Regarding your point about undue weight, I'd suggest we change the title of the section to "Muslim Questionnaire", and remove the 2 grafs after "amplify that theme." The subject of this article has generated significant controversy, and the sources cited are verifiable, reliable, third-party sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy.

Please let me know your thoughts on the wording and length of the following additions:

==Public Controversy==

==="Gay Hitler" Episode===

Biedermann's short experience in the public eye has been marked by controversy, beginning with an episode during which he posed for a photograph dressed as Adolf Hitler, with a swastika on his arm and a pink sash around his neck, while smiling and making a Nazi "sieg heil" salute.

When questioned by a reporter about the episode, Biedermann asked "What would be offensive about that photograph?" He later removed the photograph, as a result of what he called "political correctness."

In an email to constituents, Biedermann tried to explain the episode, stating:

"Gay Hitler was a SNL character from the show which of coarse (sic) is a spoof...I am not gay and never have been. Don’t know anything about Swingers Clubs and no desire to find out. I have an amazing wife.”

===Muslim Questionnaire===

In January 2017, Biedermann came under intense scrutiny from national media outlets and civil rights' advocates, after mailing a survey to Muslim leaders to ask them questions about their interpretations of Islam in preparation for a so-called "Homeland Security Summit". The surveys were distributed as part of a campaign that Biedermann said were designed to expose “radical Islamic terrorism in Texas”, and preceded a forum that Mr. Biedermann held at the State Capitol, scheduled to coincide with Texas Muslim Capitol Day, an educational event for Muslim school children, to amplify that theme.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you. Hillcountryconservative (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The ""Gay Hitler" Episode" relies on a single source, and that is behind a paywall, so we really need something more. I'm happy with your proposed "Muslim Questionnaire" paragraph, but (a) we should drop the word "so-called", and (b) we only have one "civil right advocate" listed; if we use the plural there needs to be more than one. StAnselm (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. A quick Google search yielded several other reputable, verifiable, third-party citations for the 'Gay Hitler' episode. Links below. In addition to this sub-heading, the subject also appears to have violated ethics laws: , so I'd propose we add a sub-heading for that.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-politics-gay-hitler-8284972

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Republican-Texas-House-candidate-says-there-s-7217801.php

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/election/article/GOP-Texas-House-candidate-explains-why-he-dressed-7218730.php

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/03/30/report-texas-house-candidate-donned-a-gay-hitler-costume-for-charity

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-politics-gay-hitler-8284972

Please let me know and I'll make the edits. Thank you. Hillcountryconservative (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly enough there for a short paragraph: I think Dallas News and San Antonio Express are enough - the Houston Press article is an opinion piece. But getting back to the questionnaire, I can't find a second national media outlet apart from the NYT. StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I propose changing the wording of to "intense media and public scrutiny" and cite a few more of the regional sources there then.

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/01/27/texas-muslim-community-survey

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/01/19/state-lawmaker-sends-sharia-law-poll-texas-mosques

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/30/hundreds_of_texas_muslim_leaders_receive

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Lawmaker-accused-of-asking-Muslims-to-sign-10887550.php

ThoughtsHillcountryconservative (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

But here's the important thing - we would need a source saying he faced "intense" scrutiny. We can't just list ten sources and conclude ourselves that it was intense. StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. How about "widespread media and public scrutiny"? Hillcountryconservative (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Who says that's what it was? StAnselm (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was busy with other projects. So I'll got with "media and public scrutiny" then and look forward to your thoughts.Hillcountryconservative (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, being reported in the NYT doesn't imply "scrutiny". StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, taking your suggestions on good faith I'll propose another change: "The episode atracted critical media coverage and condemnation by civil rights advocates", with the ACLU letter and the Democracy Now editorial used as citations for the latter. Thoughts? Hillcountryconservative (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made the edits. Please let me know if you have further thoughts on how we can improve this article. Hillcountryconservative (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we must have got our wires crossed - there was a whole lot you added back in that I thought you had agreed to leave out. I have edited the article to reflect what I thought was our compromise position. StAnselm (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References