|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Tennessee||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
The current page appears to be NPOV, although lacking in information. Several more paragraphs about his term as mayor would be good.
Also, the current picture is pretty lacking--if anyone has access to a newer, or better, picture, please upload it.
John 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This article does not conform to a neutral point of view due to one-sided arguments and weasel words. This issue is more serious because this article falls under the Biography of living persons guidelines. This article is well sourced, so opposing points of view should be added (and sourced) and the weasel words should be removed to make it fall into WP:BLP complaince.--Burzum 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Others, on other forums, have addressed the neutral point of view issue with me. Sorry, but the facts are the facts. I agree that opposing points of view should be included, but frankly for four months Mayor Haslam has not responded (beyond a promise to respond that never materialize). While I could attempt to paint the Mayors Against Illegal Guns as not being controversial and with the intent to erode second amendment freedoms, that would not only be inaccurate, but also fail to fully and fairly describe the controversy that has eroupted over this. I assume by weasel words you mean "liberal big city mayors." I see that as a very fact driven description. If there is something else you consider a "weasel word" please let me know (seriously, I am new to this). In addition, I think more information on his general biography needs to be added, but someone else can do that.--Countertop 04:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This morning I was informed of a radio interview that Mayor Haslam gave right when the controversy broke, where he intended to explain his action but actually created significantly more questions and led to the current heightened state of the controversy and added a link to it and a paragraph summarizeing the main gist of Mayor Haslam's discussion (I didn't mention that elevation of controversy) --Countertop 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is Wikipedia and we'll discuss the neutral point of view according to Wikipedia rules. "Liberal big city mayors" is a personal opinion, and a pejorative term by the way - please don't try to present it as fact. --Folksong 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
|An edit requested by an editor with a Conflict of Interest has been implemented.|
Greetings! Wanted to request an addition to state that Bill Haslam is on the Young Life Board of Trustees. . He has been a member of the board since 2011. Thank you! Ebranscombe (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Worst Governor in America?
Does anyone really believe that the CREW reference to Haslam being "one of the worst governors in America" is appropriate in this article? It appears that the rating is based on a subjective analysis limited to 16 Republican governors and 2 Democratic governors and in which all the governors analyzed received the rating. No criteria were specified. CFredkin (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- That paragraph should have never been added. That group's neutrality is suspect, and the methodology they used in determining the "worst governors" is laughable. I have no objections to its removal. Bms4880 (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just removed it. I've removed similar ratings from other articles and the consensus seems to be that without some third party sources to show that a rating is notable for the subject of the article or that the related controversy is notable, there's nothing to support its inclusion. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)