Talk:Randy Robertson (politician)

Neutrality
The addition of the "Anti Protest Legislation" is non-neutral for several reasons: -- WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) the section title itself is biased: the legislation is named the "Safe Communities Act of 2021" and calling it anything else exhibits a bias against the legislation and against the legislators who supported it;
 * 2) the section cites only opponents of the bill regarding its impact rather than presenting a balanced view of the legislation from both sides;
 * 3) the fact that this is the only legislation listed for Robertson gives undue weight to this single legislation.
 * User:WikiDan61, you have a point with "undue", and I have asked to expand on the article, which would make this content less undue. But sometimes we just have to suck it up and admit that much coverage is negative. You are welcome to add to it. As for the negative title--well, it seems a fair summary of what the sources call it. I suppose this lists what he's proposed so far, but I don't know if any of those things drew attention in the news, and that's what matters in terms of article writing. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, I believe the section should be retitled based on the official name of the act: the "Safe Communities Act of 2021". The text can report on the negative feedback coming from rights groups. If Robertson himself has spoken publicly on his support for the bill, his comments would be a fair balance to the negative views. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @WikiDan61 I truly understand where you are coming from and the desire to rely on the "Safe Communities Act of 2021", but this is indeed exactly the intention behind the lovely title. Furthermore, I spent hours seeking public statements or any sources for proponents to the bill, of which Senator Robertson was the only one, and I included his viewpoint. I agree that more legislation should be added, and if you are so concerned with this particular article, I implore you to take the time to contribute to–not just take away from–this article. @Drmies Austinatlanta (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would note that your description of the bill's title as "lovely" once again points to a bias. You assume bad faith on the part of the legislators who wrote the bill. I would prefer to remove the word "Controversial" from the section title. Even though the bill has been called controversial by some, and the article is right to point that out, the inherent bias implied by including that word in the section title is unacceptable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)