Talk:Sam Brownback

Loaded/biased phrases
The goal of all people editing Wikipedia entries should be to maintain neutrality while presenting facts in the most objective light possible. Certain phrases are being regularly added and removed from this entry, such as that involves the cloning and destruction of human embryos, research that millions of American tax payers believe is morally wrong from the views section. Yes, millions of Americans *do* view stem-cell research as morally wrong, but what relevance does that have to do with an entry about a single man? Absolutely none. What does it have to do with attempting to push forward a certain political agenda? A whole lot. If you look at the user profiles of some of the people editing to include these phrases, you quickly see a pattern forming. Likewise, if you wish to include something like Because of the latter belief, he condemned the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas and believes that sodomy laws are "legitimate tools" and favors prison sentences for homosexuals, please reference or otherwise provide source materials. Otherwise, you are just pushing through that much more propaganda. Neutrality, objectivity, factuality. Come on, people. 71.252.108.85 12:33, 8 April 2006

Restoration of deleted text
Brownback's nomination and confirmation as International Ambassador for Religious Freedom met considerable opposition with many groups in Kansas and elsewhere protesting his nomination and citing specifics as to why it was inappropriate. Autonomous removal of thoroughly discussed text, with the claim that uncited "positive" hypothetical statements should be added for "balance," violates Wikipedia consensus process. I restored the deletions. The confirmation vote required the intervention of the Vice President to break a tie vote that would have killed the nomination. No Democrats voted for confirmation.Activist (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I only trimmed the wording of that section. I left the mention, refs, and even the specific names of the opposers in the text. It's WP:UNDUE to devote so much text to three people/interest groups opposed to the nomination, and we don't need the exact quotes.
 * About the confirmation vote, it was literally split in half, with equal supports and opposes on both sides. Why then do we only discuss people criticizing the appointment? If I had more time, I would add some positive reaction to the nomination.
 * But these two issues (including the quoted statements made by the opposers, and including positive opinion) are two separate issues for me. Even without a positive viewpoint, that paragraph should be trimmed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of appropriate characterization
I've changed the modifier for Tommy Robinson from "right wing," back to "far right." He has only tried to appear to be less than that, toning down his rhetoric, when he was either in prison or going to court. He is extreme to the point where even UKIP barred him from joining because of his history of overt violence. He's not only an extreme anti-Islamist, but he's a career criminal. His reputation is so toxic that he found it necessary to use stolen identities to both enter and leave the U.S. If any editor has any doubts, they can read his Wikipedia article and the articles about the organizations and actions he's led. Activist (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The source literally calls him "right-wing." We're going to stick to the source, rather than engage in WP:OR or WP:COATRACK. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "We're?" Got a mouse in your pocket? The last line of the cited story refers to him as "far-right." I also suggested that you go to the Tommy Robinson article if you wanted to look further. In just the titles alone of the citations in the article, he and the organizations he's led are referred to as far-right a dozen times at least. I even Wikilinked it for you. Had you looked at that you might have noticed that these sequential and many others refer to him and his as "far-right."  "'UK far-right figure Tommy Robinson jailed for contempt'. Business Insider. 29 May 2018. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- 'Morrissey defends Tommy Robinson and new far-right party'. The Week. 7 June 2018. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- Hamilton, Fiona (30 May 2018). 'Far-right provocateur Tommy Robinson jailed over court rant'. The Times. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- Morrin, Siobhan (29 May 2018). 'Why Tommy Robinson Was Jailed, and Why U.S. Rightwingers Care'. Time. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- Palmer, Ewan (29 May 2018). 'WHY WAS TOMMY ROBINSON ARRESTED? FAR-RIGHT ACTIVIST JAILED FOR 13 MONTHS FOR 'PREJUDICING RAPE TRIAL''. Newsweek. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018. 'The EDL - Britain's Far Right Social Movement' Archived 21 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine., Radicalism and New Media Research Group, University of Northampton, 22 September 2011. Retrieved 2 February 2012"

Needless to say, I'm changing it back to agree with the other editor(s?) whom you had previously reverted. It's been in the article for at least 2 1/2 months. Activist (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

IT services under Sam Brownback
I am attempting to trace back the sequence which resulted in unused computer equipment under Sam Brownback's administration. The project was for "Kansas GovCloud". "The initiative was launched under one of Gov. Sam Brownback’s previous heads of IT, and later scuttled by the current IT director" --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 12:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018
 * 2017
 * 2016
 * 2015
 * 2014
 * 2013

Did he marry a dead woman?
"former Mary Stauffer" sounds odd to me for some reason. Is there a cleaner way to say it? "Mary (Stauffer) Brownback" or "Mary Brownback née Stauffer"? TAPwiki (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)