This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 sourcedmust 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Colin Allred is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allred has been criticized for a statement he made in 2018 suggesting that the Second Amendment should never have been written.[1]
I keep removing it because it's a WP:NPOV violation. It's a hit piece based on a 2018 comment that got no press at the time, went through the right-wing media spin briefly in early May 2023, and has not been reported on since. "Has been criticized" is a WP:WEASEL way of framing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Henrygg98, it requires ongoing disruption. This isn't met here at present as there hasn't been an edit to the page in a week. But, if it resumes, it could be a good idea to request protection at WP:RFPP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snokalok - I’m not disputing The Hill’s reliability as a source, nor did I ever suggest otherwise. However, handling a BLP is complex, especially when dealing with contentious issues involving a candidate who hasn’t explicitly mentioned trans people. This becomes even more complicated when the candidate’s statements appear within an advertisement.
The bill itself is broad, prohibiting 'individuals whose biological sex at birth was male from participating in programs designated for women or girls.'
The candidate's statement, 'Let me be clear: I don’t want boys playing girls’ sports,' in the ad is also quite broad and open to interpretation. Instead of a straightforward assertion, this vague wording could be interpreted to include cisgender athletes as well. What about cheerleading? What about sports in which there is only one team for which is classified as one gender but allows for others to try out for? It wouldn’t be fair to assume his intent, nor to conclude that anyone participating in another gender’s sports is necessarily trans." The issue with the way the article and statement was written is that it appears to be to be a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. While the statement does cite an article, the wikipedia statement implies a conclusion not stated by the article itself. We simply do not know if he was talking about transgender people or not. The word transgender is mentioned twice. Once in the title and once in the first sentence. Within the article, it was mentioned 0 times by either candidate.
Without a clearer understanding of what was meant, we risk the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. I think there's a chance the material can be included, but it needs to minimize the room for interpretation in ways that the previous statement did not capture. Part (though not all) of the issue is that he has never actually said transgender. The other part is that ads are rarely worth covering because actions surrounding bills tend to be much more telling in what candidates support and often much more objective, Wozal (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well here’s NBC directly saying it was in regards to trans sports.[1], and here’s NYT [2] saying it was directly in response to an ad that accused him of putting “boys in girls sports” in regards to transgender sports participations. Do you find that satisfactory? Snokalok (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has he confirmed this was related to "trans sports" as opposed to cisgender males playing in cisgender female sports? There is a slight but important difference between the two. Wozal (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not doubting that they're reliable sources. It's the context that I'm questioning because selective editing (especially when it's not the full context) of what has been said could lead articles to go against BLP guidelines quickly in the way we write about people.
Is there more to the source?
The Hill reports the full quotation as the following: “My faith has taught me that all kids are God’s kids. So let me be clear. I don’t want boys playing girls sports or any of this ridiculous stuff that Ted Cruz is saying,." The Hill has a paragraph which talks about Allred's fundraising, but the next paragraph follows with "“Ted Cruz is lying about my record because he can’t defend his own. He’s done nothing to secure the border,”, which feels like a continuation of the original statement, but lands on another topic.[3]
ABC which draws on the Texas debate, rather than a political ad, says the following: "I don't support boys playing girls' sports. … What I think is that folks should not be discriminated against, and what Senator Cruz should try to explain to you is why he thinks they should," Allred said," [4]
This MSNBC article explains why just the phrasing "I don't support boys playing girls' sports" is vague.[5] I believe a sightlier lengthier quotation from The Hill or ABC helps puts things into context in a better way as long as the context is made clearer.
I think the ABC source is stronger for the simple fact that it seems to draw on the Texas debate rather than a political ad. My concern with the source coming from an ad is that political ads can be seen as advocacy or propaganda. Since Wikipedia is not an Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, I think context and phrasing is key to ensure that we're not making implications in wiki voice.
ETA: I think starting with the phrase "In the 2024 Texas Senate debate, Allred" stated/clarified/addressed.... and an expansion on his quote without going too much into detail (to risk being undue) would go a long way in understanding the context in which things were said and minimize other concerns. I think it's important to avoid MOS:EDITORIAL and avoid using words like "however" whenever possible. I think the slight change in the start to introduce a more complete quotation would paint a fuller picture.
