Talk:Lynn Westmoreland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interview on Colbert Report[edit]

I didn't delete the section because it wasn't verifiable or POV. I deleted it because it is pointless. Do we need a transciption of the interview including word for word (including the uhs and ums) each commandment he could remember? Do we also need to know Colbert asked him if he could think of any better place to put the commandments? And then his reponse? How are these tiny useless detailed relevant? I have fixed the article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.4.18 (talk • contribs) at 8:51, 17 June 2006

Westmoreland named three commandments, not four. Other than that, I agree with the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.140.226 (talk • contribs) at 11:13, 17 June 2006

No, it is absolutly relevant that he couldn't name the very same commandments he wanted to display publicly. It goes beyond a mere gaffe and bespeaks of his interest in rallying conservative voters over an issue he himself didn't know but sought political gain from. That would be like a professor testing students on a subject she doesn't know well or a pastor who doesn't practice what he preaches. I've added the incident and transcript. philosopher2king 2/17/08

Question: The text states that Westmoreland is one of two congressmen not to introduce any legislation, but isn't the bill to display the ten commandments technically some kind of legislation? It's a bill right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterGryphon (talk • contribs) at 10:56, 6 August 2006

During the Colbert interview Westmoreland says he has not introduced any legislation. "Colbert: You have not introduced a single piece of legislation since you entered Congress. Westmoreland: That's correct." I guess co-sponsoring a bill is different then introducing it.--Skroha 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little off topic, but after a quick Google search I found this: “Co-Sponsor - A member or members that add his or her name formally in support of another members bill. In the House a member can become a co-sponsor of a bill at any point up to the time the last authorized committee considers it.” --Skroha 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the video was spliced[edit]

The article now states the following:

Westmoreland's press secretary stated that Westmoreland actually got up to about seven of the Ten Commandments before petering out, but that the video was edited before it was shown on the Colbert Report.

Is there any external verification as to whether this is true or false? Has Colbert or anyone on his show commented on this?

If you watch the video at [1] carefully, it does look edited. Colbert is counting Westmoreland's commandments on his fingers, and he gets up to three. The camera cuts to Westmoreland, and when it returns to Colbert he isn't holding up fingers anymore. It's possible that Colbert dropped his hands quickly, but why would he do that when his counting on his fingers was part of the joke? OTOH, that's just my interpretation (in violation of WP:NOR), and I'm hoping something definitive has been said about this.

The clip is pretty famous now, so if it really was edited we shouldn't perpetuate the fraud on Wikipedia! — Lawrence King (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a few years after your conversation took place but I've added the proper link verifying he got seven and not four of the commandments right (still pretty embarrassing since he co-sponsored that legislation but I'm not here to judge - I'll leave that to the Christian right! :P). Fair is fair. To whoever fixed my mishap while loading the new link: Thanks! 2/22/08 Philosopher2king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to CNN, Westmoreland names 3 commandments but got one wrong (so he named 2 commandments correctly). There is no cited source for Westmorland naming more than that, and so it should not be claimed in this wiki article that he names more than 2. See [2] If there is a good source for saying he got 7, then put it up. But as of now, there is no such source.

Attributing to Colbert Video[edit]

The interview referenced in the article is available here: http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=180282 I would add it as a citation, but I don't know how to format it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.27.121 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Westmoreland ten commandments.jpg[edit]

Image:Westmoreland ten commandments.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uppity controversy[edit]

There seems to be a revert war brewing regarding the word uppity, with some people asserting that the dictionary they use doesn't mention the racial connotation. Mainstream sources, such as the LA Times and others, will provide explanations of the term's history. Scholarly publications would provide even more context. "Uppity n*gg*r" was long a catchphrase of American racial relations and from any neutral, objective view of history has a strong racial connotation and context. Attempts to de-racialize it are, however innocently, attempts to insert a revisionist POV in the article. The best place to discuss it if necessary is here, on the talk page, not in the edit summaries. However, anyone wishing to revert the article and de-racialize the term should please google the word - and the phrase - first. — LisaSmall T/C 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to question the racial significance, but I do have one problem with the way the article describes what he said. The article currently says that Westmoreland described the Obamas as uppity. He did not. He said that they belong to a group that sees themselves as uppity. He described their attitude toward themselves as if they thought themselves uppity. Now it's plainly false that anyone might think themselves uppity, so I'm not sure why he said it this way unless he's just extremely unfamiliar with how the word is ever used (an argument on behalf of his also not knowing the racial connotations). But regardless of his ignorance, it doesn't seem accurate to say that he described them as uppity. He didn't. He described them as thinking of themselves as uppity, whatever that was supposed to mean. The actual quotation does appear after this in the article, but it's not very encyclopedic to have a false statement, even if it gets corrected later by a quotation. Parableman (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in Atlanta (the "mill town") uppity is loaded with racial meaning. Especially for people born before the 60s and 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.43.41 (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lynn Westmoreland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lynn Westmoreland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lynn Westmoreland. 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: 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) 22:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lynn Westmoreland. 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, 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) 08:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lynn_Westmoreland&oldid=1208230996"