Talk:Tommy Tuberville

Tuberville Racism?
Is anyone developing a section on his racism? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3681546-naacp-blasts-tuberville-for-flat-out-racist-reparations-comments/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.34.202.79 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Tommy Tuberville is an ignorant jackass! 2601:140:8300:2F60:7DB2:727:163A:2DCE (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Tuberville portrait
Not something I would usually do but since I foresee a potential WP:EDITWAR over this (the past three edit/reverts while distant, share the same image dispute), I'm starting a WP:CONSENSUS discussion for Tommy Tuberville's portrait. The current dispute is between these images, both of which from cursory inspection seem to have been taken in the same year (2021):

I personally prefer Option 1, as the football does not obscure the subject of the article. I agree that Option 2 better represents the "Coach" Tommy Tuberville personality and past career he has, but reasons above apply. As for which image is more appropriate rule-wise, I hope more experienced editors can chime in here. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Understandable. I would vote for 2 because it's better representative of the Senator, appears to be more recent, and is his official portrait as of now. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 14:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it's his twitter profile picture, his facebook profile picture, and the portrait provided on his official website. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 14:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also much higher resolution, with Option 1 being 720x900 pixels large, and Option 2 being 5,093x6,366 pixels large. As such, it provides a much higher quality insight into identifying the subject; Senator Tuberville. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 14:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To cap it off, other Senators & Representatives tend to have their latest official portrait as their official portrait, rather than other portraits which may be deemed 'better', examples being Sherrod Brown, Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kelly, Marco Rubio, Don Young, Todd Young, Joni Ernst, among countless others. It'd only make sense that Tuberville follows the same principle/guideline. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 14:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, as such, I vote for Option 2. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 20:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1, No US Senator's page has a main image that looks anything like Option 2. If there wasn't a football in Option 2 then it would make sense as another option for the info box, but having that in the image just makes it look inappropriate. I get that it references Tuberville's past as a coach, but it doesn't look right for the main image of a US Senator's page. Also Option 2 isn't much more recent than Option 1. At most, there's a two month difference between the images, with the first being taken sometime in early 2021, and Option 2 being taken on January 27, 2021. So taking the age of the photos into account seems pretty unimportant. BlueShirtz (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * option 2, mostly because image 1 is so heavily airbrushed it almost looks more like a painting than an actual photograph. The football is a nice added touch because it intersects his two careers. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * option 2 Although the first is more formal, the second image is of higher quality and also reflects his time as a coach. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I vote for Option 2. It's representative of the Senator's career and life story, it's taken most recently, and it has a much higher resolution than Option 1. Kingofthedead also has a point about 1 being heavily airbrushed. 2 is the clear winner. GI Brown 1970 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems the vote is currently at 2 votes for option 1, and 4 votes for option 2. I do not know what the rule is on closing a vote, and nor do I have the power to close votes, but it's been 5 months, and I think it's best the vote ends. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 05:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Kinda late here, but even if the vote is closed, I'm voting for Option 2. As stated by Kingofthedead, Krisgabwoosh, and GI Brown 1970, the second image represents his career as a Football coach and is of higher quality than the first. Mr. New Deal Chief (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ^^ Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 23:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Option 2 is too distracting plus option 1 follows suit with other senate portraits. --2601:249:8E00:420:8526:E13A:ED97:796F (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Is the best official portrait for a sitting US Senator. Option 2 looks like a publicity stunt/unofficial IMO. --38.106.246.197 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Not sure if I’m too late, however while making my rounds to see if new portraits of the newly elected senators have been uploaded, I was surprised to see Tuberville’s image. Option 1 is best because it follows the examples of the other official portraits used for other senators. I also agree with SuperWIKI’s point, option 2 looks more like a portrait for Coach Tommy while Option 1 looks more like Senator Tommy. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Classic Wikipedia Democratic Bias
This is the conclusion of the introduction of Maxine Waters on Wikipedia:

“Waters was included in Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People of 2018.” Maxine Waters

She also voted to decertify an election, but it was in 2004 against a Republican. No need to put that front a center like the conclusory and unconditional statement that Tuberville wanted to “overturn” the 2020 election. (That’s unambiguously a slanted characterization designed to paint Tuberville’s (in my view sad) actions in the most extreme manner, associating Tuberville in the process with some kind of violent coup. Even NPR was more measured in describing what Tuberville actually did: he filed an objection on the floor of the Senate, in regular order, to the electoral college count, https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/07/954380156/here-are-the-republicans-who-objected-to-the-electoral-college-count )

To Wikipedia commenters who will inevitably say that that is a problem for the Maxine Waters page to address (the Maxine Waters page would send you right back here with an identical response), you are enabling the politicization of Wikipedia, and in the process, hastening the decline of bipartisan trust in another purported source of neutrality. Leadership and turning the other cheek is more important than petty political points on a wiki. Please rephrase it from the slanted description in the introduction, akin to the NPR language, or move it to the body, like Wikipedia does for Maxine Waters. 2601:400:8001:2150:BD7E:D5E3:8473:9638 (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you suffered lead poisoning as a child but you should probably air your grievances somewhere else. Humorless Wokescold (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2023 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You Can't Make This Stuff Up Tommy Tuberville Slams Biden, Democrats For Unemployment Benefits.ogg

Rephrasing bit
@PRRfan I think the sentence you reverted is understandable english and clearer than it currently is. It's a common issue I encounter when relating legal decisions where you have competing and contradictory acts, and where a part of the sentence can sometimes be applied to one or the other. Gouvernathor (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. When I read "the decision...a decision", my first reaction was that the words were accidentally repeated, signaling that perhaps an edit had gone awry and that the sentence had become garbled. By removing the second "decision", we eliminate that potential source of confusion. Even if I'm more easily confused than the average bear, I would also argue that the sentence is perfectly clear without it. There's little chance that the reader of "...in reaction to the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which held..." will connect the clause beginning with "which" to anything but its immediate predecessor; moreover, "held" is much more easily understood to refer to "the decision" than to anything else in the sentence. But if that leaves you unconvinced, how about replacing "a decision" with "a ruling"? PRRfan (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with that. Gouvernathor (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2023
This page needs major overhauls, especially regarding Tommy’s current residence being Florida and the lies about him moving to Alabama in 2018, which he did not do

Tommy did NOT move to Alabama in 2018, his wife and son bought a house he later used as “home address” when he first registered to vote in Alabama in 2019, one day before filing his senate candidacy. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/10/tommy-tuberville-floridas-third-senator/ 71.185.192.215 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Lemonaka‎  01:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

end of promotion block
Please review news coverage - I heard of a bipartisan temporal rule change made in a commision and set out for confirmation in the Senate that would have worked around Tubervilles block and that was the only reason he gave up blocking them the normal way. That rule change was made for 3-star and lower ranks only so he continues blocking 4-star promotions. Denniss (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)