Talk:Frank Lucas (Oklahoma politician)

POV

If you look under the Oklahoma House of Representatives section, you'll see this sentence:

Immediately after being seated, Lucas became very vocal for causes he supported (among other positions, he supports the death penalty and opposes abortion rights). The Democratic-controlled state house responded by redrawing his district in 1990 in such a way that ensured defeat.

This says to me that the state house actively and consciously sought to make sure Lucas could no longer win in his district. This is a clear and blatant accusation of gerrymandering.

I've marked it so the point of view can be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.250.22 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The robot story

The bizarre claims of one of Lucas' 2014 Republican opponents have drawn more national press attention to Lucas than he has ever had in his life (look at the editing history of this article). The claims are about Lucas, and the opponent says he is going to challenge Lucas on the allegations in court. How and why would we want to omit them from the article entirely? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So far the article has cited two articles which are clearly about Murray, rather than about Lucas, [1][2] and Murray's own website. [3] Unless and until articles about Lucas discuss the story in depth, I really can't see why it merits inclusion. Do we usually include wild conspiracy theories by opposing candidates in articles on serving politicians? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that when it attracts national press attention, we should. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS - and it is Murray that is being written about, not Lucas. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Andy on this one. In many other respects we go to a fair bit of trouble to avoid, at the margin, the spread of very well-publicized rumors about living people. We do this for a variety of reasons, but most involve avoiding harm to living people. While at the surface this seems so WP:FRINGE, as allegations go, it was at first hard for me to imagine it would do much harm, but there is always a market for fringe material, and it seems at best of undue weight, unfairly talking about Lucas in the context of (sorry, I"m going to be blunt) crazy talk, and distracting our readers from things we actually verifiably know about Lucas. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that's mainstream enough to qualify as fringe. :-) Definitely shouldn't be in here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In previous conspiracy theories and putative scandals regarding public figures, we have avoided jumping on the bandwagon early on. So far, as noted above the coverage ha said "Murray says..." I agree that it does not need to be in the article about Lucas. If, on the other hand, a story gains traction, such as by mainstream media asking the accused about the allegations at a press conference, or his office issuing an official denial, or his backers announcing to the press that they are confident he is not a robot (it seems odd to even type that phrase), then it would become appropriate to include it. In the past, such stories have typically been about alleged sexual escapades or financial misconduct rather than claims reminiscent of Twilight Zone, but the same standard can be applied.We follow mainstream media rather than leading them. Edison (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I might suggest the bar might be around the point where the allegations themselves become a notable topic by themselves, but even that would be permissive compared to how we treat, say, allegations of sexual orientation. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This odd accusation is not like sexual orientation. So far as I am aware, we leave it to an individual to state his sexual orientation. Quite by contrast, we do not assign sole responsibility to the subject of an accusation to state whether he is an immoral or unethical person, a liar, an adulterer, a spy, a traitor, a thief, a murderer, a pedophile, a prostitute, or a rapist. Accusations in the mainstream media, denials by the accused, arrests, indictments, prosecutions, convictions, inquiries by legislative bodies, and courtsmartial which get widely reported in mainstream media are what might justify inclusion in a bio article in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I had added it today because I thought it was funny - and the attendant article is written with a sense of bemusement, making fun of Murray just by quoting him. Clearly, Murray is on a fringe of some kind. But in retrospect I agree it's probably best to keep it out... unless Murray actually goes through with his threat to contest the election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is funny! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Politicians and their support team invent all kinds of stories about their opponents, but I don't recall ever seeing one that was this off-the-wall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's hit the washington post, it's worth mentioning in at least a sentence on this campaign. Is see it's in Sydney Morning Herald also, the Independent, the Daily Mail, etc. I'd even support it being in if a Libertarian candidate had stated it; thankfully Ray isn't one. :-() Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me the NY Times referenced it also. Ironically, Murray is not considered notable enough to have his own article, so the only place it works is this one. I figure the objections here amount to the risk that some idiot might read it and take it seriously. If Murray does go through with his threat to legally challenge the election, it will merit a mention, since we don't want Wikipedia itself to look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Lucas (Oklahoma politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)