Talk:Sylvester Turner

1991 campaign
It seems like someone on turner's current campaign is section wiping over the failed 1991 election to help turner's image. ~bog5576 Bog5576 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bog5576 continuously vandalizes through citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings.PrimeNotice (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

These are not opinion articles:


 * http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-knows-everything/
 * http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/24688582/sylvester-turner-eyes-houston-mayor-job
 * http://www.projectq.us/houston/Mayoral_candidates_woo_gay_Houston_for_support?gid=17062
 * http://www.houstonpress.com/news/curiouser-and-curiouser-6572773
 * http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/amendments/pdf/SB00006H260.PDF
 * http://www.texasobserver.org/rep-sylvester-turner-says-hes-evolved-on-lgbt-issues/

Please stop removing the cited material and falsely claiming it is based on opinion-pieces. ~bog5576 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bog5576 (talk

Reverting war
This isn't what an edit history page should look like:

cur | prev) 18:33, 11 August 2015‎ Bog5576 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,289 bytes) (+3,034)‎ . . (Undid revision 675627037 by HawksRow (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:33, 11 August 2015‎ HawksRow (talk | contribs)‎. . (21,255 bytes) (-3,034)‎. . (Undid revision 675626859 by Bog5576 (talk)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:32, 11 August 2015‎ Bog5576 (talk | contribs)‎. . (24,289 bytes) (+3,034)‎. . (Undid revision 675626631 by HawksRow (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:30, 11 August 2015‎ HawksRow (talk | contribs)‎. . (21,255 bytes) (-3,034)‎. . (Undid revision 675624087 by Bog5576 (talk)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:14, 11 August 2015‎ Bog5576 (talk | contribs)‎. . (24,289 bytes) (+3,034)‎. . (Undid revision 675623852 by HawksRow (talk) cleaning vandalism, use talk page) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:13, 11 August 2015‎ HawksRow (talk | contribs)‎. . (21,255 bytes) (-3,034)‎. . (undo | thank)

Use the talk page if you have a problem with what's posted on the page, dont blindly blank it. Thanks. ~bog5576

Bog5576 & vandalism
user:Bog5576 consistently misinterprets language and confuses reading text this leads to improper citing. This user has attempted to get me banned. Below is an attempt to explain

Me: As previously stated, Bog5576 continuously vandalizes through citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings.PrimeNotice (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Bog5576: You've been section blanking cited material. Please cease vandalizing the page. ~bog5576 Me: No section is blanked. Warranted removal of bias and unstained information is not section blanking.PrimeNotice (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Bog5576: You claimed I cited opinion pieces when I cited over 10 references- none from opinion articles. Why are you being blatantly dishonest? ~bog5576 Me: For Instance: Where in this article do you see that Sylvetser Turner's mayoral campagian paid for 76 memberships, as you claim? [1] Hint: It doesn't say paid for 76 memberships. PrimeNotice (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Bog5576: It says "Bell also knocked Turner for purchasing $3,040 worth of memberships, enough for at least 76 people. Turner won the endorsement by 67 votes" Me: EXACTLY! So you don't know how many memberships were brought. It doesn't say brought 76 as you claim. You can't tell me all of the 76 memberships (as you claim) actually showed up and participated. Memberships does not equal votes. You've twisted words to make that leap and fit your own narrative. Lets keep it bias free. PrimeNotice (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Bog5576: What you're complaining about is coming from Houston's largest newspaper, the Houston Chronicle- not me. It's not biased, it's laying out the facts. Once again, what opinion articles have I cited? Did you make that up? Me: The article does not say 76 memberships were brought but you did. That's False. I am not disagreeing with the Chronicle. I am disagreeing with your edits to this page which do not match your citation. Bog5576: Are you sure you read the chronicle article or researched the HGLBT caucus endorsement? If you did you'd agree with me. Turner purchased 76 memberships. Even his campaign admitted it to the Chronicle. Me: You take an article [2] as fact, when it strictly relies on an a man who the author claims is "Anti Turner." A There is a lot of language within that article showing his animosity against "Turner" anything he says is bias and his opinion. PrimeNotice (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Bog5576: That source backed up a statement describing Dolcefino's report. I didn't quote the anti-turner man in the article, I quoted the texas monthly (a reputable source)

Me: The campaign purchased memberships but they did not say they purchased 76 like you claim in your postings. This war needs to end before they ban us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawksNotice (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawksNotice (talk • contribs)


 * Here's the bottom line: Turner is in a mayoral election right now and has a campaign that doesn't want anything negative on his wikipedia page. I can't convince someone that works for him to leave my cited information alone. Unfortunately, I doubt that without the intervention of an administrator, this material will continue to be added and then wiped by his campaign. Bog5576 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Buying GLBT memberships
Previously, under the gay right section, I wrote a few sentences about how the turner campaign paid thousands to buy at least 76 memberships in the GLBT caucus. It was cited, notable, and accurate. I'm not sure why that part was deleted. Bog5576 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Insurance scam
Some editor(s) apparently try to add these lines to the article: "Specifically, it charged Turner with defrauding millions of dollars in a bizarre insurance scam involving the man Turner lived with, Dwight Thomas, and Sylvester Foster, a male model and beauty salon owner." While the phrase "bizarre insurance scam" is indeed used by the Houston Press, the claim that Turner was charged with anything is incorrect. Says the Press: "Channel 13's lawyers [... deny that the scam story was "planned, suggested or instigated" by the Lanier camp or that it accused Turner of being part of a conspiracy to defraud insurers.]" So Turner was not charged with defrauding anything. Rather, says the Texas monthly, "Dolcefino’s report was innuendo rather than proof", and (the Press again) its timing and presentation "was a contorted bit of journalistic disingenuousness". I do not think such innuendo should have a place in an encyclopedia article, and even less so claims that weren't even made in that apparent hit piece. Huon (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At the very least, it'd be nice to have a better source for these allegations, and their role in the 1991 campaign. Perhaps one written more recently, with the benefit of hindsight, rather than us solely citing early-1990s newspaper articles, and then attempting to develop an original interpretation. That kind of historical synthesis directly from contemporary news reports is fairly weak sourcing for anything except very recent events (for very recent events, newspaper articles would be the only thing that has had time to be published, so are more understandable as sole sources). --Delirium (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Development of the Fifth Ward
Dear Sir, I am a home owner in the 77026 zip code, notably the Fifth Ward. I purchased my home in this particular neighborhood knowing that it is a particularly oppressed neighborhood yet Historically Black American neighborhood. My home is a new build and I am very grateful that I am in the position to live how I deserve to live in what is apparently not considered to be the preferable neighborhood of the Americans, no, Black American population of Houston. I see the Exodus of the very essence of the community and I am so Sad to say this. I see the opportunity for the people that have so much more buying and building with the taxes that are leveraged against Us, moving us Out with the so called opportunity to move to a better neighborhood. I see this as the “Colonial “ opportunity to build and move closer to the downtown area. I too am being affected by this aggressive or passive aggression. Please help us to save our Historic Community as it is American History, and we too deserve to remain safely here and economically recognized, supported as are the outer Caucasian and Asian communities. Please support Us as these Latin, Asian and other American communities are recognized, supported and protected. I ask this with all of my fellow Americans for your support and consideration and prayers. In Jesus Christ Name Amen. 2601:2C7:C301:3170:C586:FD3E:C2D8:2351 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)