Talk:Alan Wilson (South Carolina politician)

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: South Carolina Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as High-importance).

A fact from Alan Wilson (South Carolina politician) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 June 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson is the adopted son of Congressman Joe Wilson?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/June.

Wikipedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Wilson (South Carolina 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Added POV banner. It seems to me that some info on this may be one-sided or bias, especially the section regarding "Zombie Voters." Dr. Blazer (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to hear other people's thoughts. I just read the Zombie Voters section and it appears to be neutral to me. There are only so many ways you can neutralize someone brazenly lying. I don't think we should be trying to "both sides" anything (not implying that you are saying that), and it appears to be an egregious incident with no up-side to highlight. Muttnick (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find that this Wikipedia article biased like so many, many others on Wikipedia these days! Wikipedia has become so corrupted to the point that it has become virtually worthless as a source for objective, honest information. I use Brittanica now as it's a much reliable and honest source of information. Dacroce1 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]