Talk:Stacey Campfield

Heavily biased

This article seems extremely prejudiced against Mr. Campfield in regards to LGBT legislation. It only lists his initiatives that are considered "anti-gay," and provides a good deal of irrelevant information just to criticize him. In particular, I don't see why the origin of AIDS needs to be detailed on this page just to make him look foolish. 63.232.208.113 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The information on AIDS is relevant because it provides a possible source of reasoning to Mr. Campfield's views on homosexuals. And more importantly, they deserve mention in his entry because they made national headlines. I don't think anyone outside the state of Tennessee even knew who the man was before his remarks. And really, can you think of an initiative of his that is "pro-gay?" I see nothing wrong with the article. It doesn't take a quote out of context and further elucidates his opinion. Shabeki (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shabeki. Canfield's views are muddled, poorly informed and dangerous. They give the impression that unprotected heterosexual sex is virtually without danger. 40% of women in the U.S. acquire HIV from heterosexual sex, though there is a much higher risk to the woman in anal intercourse.

His views and behavior were known outside Tennessee before the most recent ignorant remarks. For instance, he authored a bill to provide death certificates, open to public inspection, for aborted embryos, eliminating the mother's health information protection. He published libelous information about a Democratic candidate for the state legislature, that the candidate had "multiple drug arrests." When the candidate sued, Campfield initially and without foundation, sought the protection of legislative immunity. Additionally, I provided reliable information in place of similarly unreliable, unlinked, claim in an article in Details Magazine, March 2004, "Whatever Happened to AIDS and Straight Men?" by Kevin Gray. I removed that cite. It had asserted an astronomical understatement of the risk in contracting HIV through heterosexual activity. The article gave a source as the "Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998," with no citation number, article title or date provided. In a exhaustive search of JAMA archives I could find no such quote other than those which repeated that original author's vague citation Here's better info: Saracco A, Msicco M, Nicolosi A, et al, for the Italian partner study. Man to woman sexual transmission of HIV: a longitudinal study of 343 steady partners of infected men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1993;6:497-502.

Mastro TD, De Vincenzi I. Probabilities of sexual HIV transmission. AIDS. 1996;10(suppl A):575-582. Activist (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Much of the article was about Sen. Campfield's views on homosexuality and AIDS, so I added and expanded the information about other bills he has introduced during his eight-year career in the Tennessee state legislature. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Background section included the phrase "In spite of having a registered IQ of 88..." without citation. It seemed unverifiable (particularly because I don't think an "IQ registry" even exists), although it wouldn't surprise me, considering his demonstrably ignorant opinions and presentation of "facts." Virgil Coletrane (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's likely vandalism. The page has been targeted before. Paris1127 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Real estate and property developers

She is in this category but none of the content reflects that. Was this her previous career?--FearsomeFoursome (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stacey Campfield. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/sep/29/what-heck-wrong-stacey-campfield

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Headers

I think they make for an easier read but is there a finite amount in the guidelines?--TinHo82 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Lack of citations and neutrality

In 2014 Campfield passed legislation protecting schools, teachers and students from possible prosecution for using traditional winter holiday greetings or displays. The bill allowed for religious symbols and greetings to be used as long as more than one religion was recognized by the school. The legislation received condemnation from groups like the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation who sent letters to schools threatening legal action previous to the bill's passage. This passage reads like it's taken directly from Fox News. Not only does it lack citations, it disingenously frames the ACLU and the FFRF as unreasonable lunatics. If this is going to be mentioned, the section needs to clearly state what the so calld "merry christmas bill" was ACTUALLY about and what the objections of the organizations condemning it have been. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)