From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian P. Kemp. 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) 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Big truck guy

Discussion on the psychological perspective for article inclusion may be in order; considering. Wikipietime ( talk) 11:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Firearm pointing controversy

User:47.39.225.163, who appears to have some interest in this subject, keeps removing a referenced section about the subject pointing a firearm at someone in an ad. The material is referenced and it confirms it. I have no opinions on the subject other than hating seeing referenced material removed. Ifnord ( talk) 16:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • There's another COI editor at work. As far as I can tell there are two things to do: look carefully at the wording in order to verify that the information is written up neutrally, and that the high school dispute is answered properly, with a reliable source. Drmies ( talk) 15:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply

No criticisms section?

The man is as controversial a figure as Donald Trump. The article reads as if written by a Kemp supporter. There is zero information on the Monroe-Bibb border line dispute, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2433:F869:25D5:D758:E3B0:1534 ( talk) 15:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I completely disagree. No one is comparable in controversy as Donald Trump, by any metric. That being said, I don’t hate the idea, but I really do not see what that adds fo the article. Plus, could it not be added under his career section, when appropriate? ( talk) 03:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Summary in lede

Kemp's oversight of elections should obviously be in the lede, given that most of the body covers this. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Change of the lead section, paragraph two.

Would it be acceptable to change paragraph two of the lead section from:

He is currently the Republican nominee for Governor of Georgia in the 2018 election, which as the Secretary of State he is also in charge of overseeing.

To:

He is currently the Republican nominee for Governor of Georgia in the 2018 election, which as the Secretary of State he is also in charge of overseeing. This has been called a "huge conflict of interest." [1]


Fine by me. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 08:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Nelson, Janai. "Georgia gubernatorial candidate's huge conflict of interest". CNN. Retrieved 2018-10-21.

One of the most biased opening leads to any politician's article

Four paragraphs, and three of them are basically long "Kemp bad, Kemp was accused by political opponents of [negative thing], etc." I have never seen such a biased, one-sided opening for any active politician who wasn't like arrested. Nothing but "critics say." This is the kind of writing that makes it difficult for many to take Wikipedia seriously as a source for political-related stuff.

TimmyTurnerTripFag ( talk) 11:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Yup. Srnec ( talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah, ask anyone outside of the cluster of power users who know all the jargon, and 5000 Wiki buzzwords, and they will agree that Wikipedia, outside of Hard Sciences and Mathematics generally, is a deeply flawed practice at best. In before #NotAForum. Let my statement add that for someone with a 100% clean legal record with many years of public service, Kemp's opening lede is quite possibly more negative than many criminal gangsters, or historical war lords wiki pages, in the light that it casts on him. You'd think he's 3 weeks from a March on Atlanta, Mussolini style, and declaring the Imperial Empire of the White Georgians. 2601:982:4200:A6C:B87B:9671:21E:181C ( talk) 02:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

Brian Kemp 83rd Governor of Georgia Rachal Grizzle 08:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Apparently Georgia law allows for a runoff if no candidate gets a majority, so this is yet to be decided Cannolis ( talk) 13:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

remove "Kemp graduated from Athens Academy in 1983.[9][10]. "

rationale: I am a 1983 graduate of Athens Academy. There were 33 of us. BK was categorically NOT among us. And I do not know the name in the context of my school days. I have also just gone through the yearbooks from 1980-1983: he is not mentioned or pictured in any of them. It's a small school, EVERYONE is in the yearbooks, more than once

The cited articles are in error "Alums Kalupe Booze '11 and Joe Tillman '87 Lead Middle School Spartans to Championship". Athens Academy. Retrieved 25 July 2018." and " Ford, Wayne. "Athens Academy observes 50th anniversary". Athens Banner-Herald. Retrieved 25 July 2018."

The authors of these articles must have taken him at his word. His daughter may be/have been a student but there is no hard evidence to suggest that Brian Kemp was.


thank you 70.186.194.28 ( talk) 15:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sakura Cartelet Talk 23:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

Brian Kemp won the election, he was elected Governor of Georgia last night and is now the Governor of Georgia. 2001:5B0:2556:9A98:E05B:C547:2037:E1E1 ( talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 ( talk) 16:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

change "graduated from Athens Academy in 1983.[9][10]." to "went to Clarke Central High School."

change "Ford, Wayne. "Athens Academy observes 50th anniversary". Athens Banner-Herald. Retrieved 25 July 2018. "Alums Kalupe Booze '11 and Joe Tillman '87 Lead Middle School Spartans to Championship". Athens Academy. Retrieved 25 July 2018."

to https://www.kempforgovernor.com/about-brian-kemp

70.186.194.28 ( talk) 18:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC) 70.186.194.28 ( talk) 18:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sakura Cartelet Talk 23:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

The introduction paragraph is really partisan. 75.57.26.26 ( talk) 03:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet Talk 23:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

Brian Kemp has been elected the 83rd Governor of Georgia Blake.bassham ( talk) 22:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sakura Cartelet Talk 23:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

change " Kemp graduated from Athens Academy in 1983.[11][12]" to "Kemp went to Clarke Central" and replace notes 11 and 12 with " https://www.kempforgovernor.com/about-brian-kemp"

rationale: BK did not graduate from AA; I have a 1983 yearbook to prove--small school, only 33 members of the graduating class. He was not among them (I was; and thus I am a primary source with a published source to support the correction) His own page claims that he "went to Clarke Central" Gaius Cornelius Tacitus ( talk) 14:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sakura Cartelet Talk 23:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

change "Assumed Office" to "Assuming office"; Replace "Preceded by" with "Preceding"; Remove "Incumbent" from info box

 Not done: Please be more specific as to what are requesting to be changed. These terms appear in multiple places throughout the article, and there have been changes made to the article since this request was placed. ‑‑ ElHef ( Meep?) 16:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

I don't know who is managing this page but it's absolutely ridiculous. This isn't a bio of Georgia's next Governor...this is copy/paste of all attacks from the campaign. Here are a few examples of things that need to be corrected. Seriously, there are about 25 more.

- Kemp graduated from Clarke Central High School - The "rejected help" from DHS had to do with system scans already provided by private security providers - "held up" would be inaccurate re 'pending' voters in Georgia. - Summary of Georgia's list maintenance laws are inaccurate. It's a 7 year process. - Kemp rejects that Russia interfered in Georgia elections. - There was no breach of data in the SOS office. - Summary of Kemp's positions, specifically RFRA are factually inaccurate - Kemp has loans in goodstanding with his bank. Is that really worth noting in his Wiki page? Davey2121 ( talk) 01:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources if appropriate. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 02:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

National Review idiocy

The National Review claimed that there could not be voter suppression for the simple reason that voter turnout increased. Do I really have to explain why this is an idiotic argument that does not merit inclusion on this encyclopedia? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Lol. That’s almost hilarious is you do not think about the likelihood that many believe that. ( talk) 03:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Voting Machine Information

The information on Georgia voting machines is outdated since Georgia began using voting machines with a paper printout in 2020. Prizepatrol ( talk) 18:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Doonesbury mention

Apparently, part of this article as of September 28, 2020 or thereabouts (based on the reference numbers) appears in the October 4, 2020 Doonesbury comic. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 16:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note 25 Re no paper ballot confirmation. Cites NPR from 2018. But GA Sec. State Rathensperger has emphasized in recent interview that since they went to paper ballot verification the counting is slowed down a bit. The fact of this system, new to GA since previous election, adds credibility to the recounts.

Note 25 Re no paper ballot confirmation. Cites NPR from 2018. But GA Sec. State Rathensperger has emphasized in recent interview that since they went to paper ballot verification the counting is slowed down a bit. The fact of this system, new to GA since previous election, adds credibility to the recounts. Johnskaufman ( talk) 23:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

What is to be changed? I see no proposition. ( talk) 03:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

Article states Kemp attended "Gainesville Backwoods Community College," then under his "Early Life" tab states he attended University of Georgia. 75.35.38.56 ( talk) 12:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks, the vandalism has been reverted. ‑‑ ElHef ( Meep?) 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Highlight the opponent

I think this wikipedia page is great, it would just be a little better if you highlighted in blue, the names of Kemp's opponents that way readers can just simply click the name of the opponent and be taken to there page.

Multiple changes to the lead

The editor Bill Williams has made multiple changes to the article's lead. A number of these changes are contentious and drastic, such as adding content about how Stacy Abrams refused to concede (which is not fully reflective of how RS have covered the issue) [1] [2], undue text about how Kemp resigned after the election (which obfuscates the controversy for readers by mixing this up with his failure to resign -during- the election), and various changes that remove any mention of voting rights. Not only should the lead be reflective of the body, but it should adhere to RS and NPOV. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Kemp resigned from one of only three government positions he ever held and you reverted my edit and made the article simply state that he refused to resign without clarifying that he resigned after the election. Abrams refused to concede and this topic has been covered numerous times by reliable sources [3] [4] [5] [6], and if you are going to detail in the lead about how much Abrams claimed Kemp suppressed voters, and then maintained such claims after the election, three words saying "refused to concede" can add important information to a description of her activities. Lastly, reliable sources do not say the election law "limits voting rights" unless you can provide source showing a "right to vote without proving your identity" or a "right to drop off a ballot in a box". The vast majority of reliable sources [7] [8] [9] [10] make absolutely no mention of it supposedly limiting voting rights, and accusing Kemp of limiting voting rights is a complete and obvious BLP violation. All of my content was sourced while yours was purely POV. Bill Williams 02:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
(1) A multitude of RS say she did concede. [11] [12] It was not a typical concession speech though, given that she highlighted the substantial voter suppression that Kemp had engaged in and launched a legal challenge which is still ongoing. The lead can sufficiently cover the 2018 election without delving into the weeds of whether it was a formal concession or not. (2) It's obfuscatory to say that he resigned after the election immediately after text on criticisms that he didn't resign during the election. (3) These are restrictions on voting. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
(1) they do not say that she conceded to losing, they say "conceding that former Georgia secretary of state Brian Kemp would be declared the winner" meaning she conceded that he would become the next governor, not that she lost, and the NPR source quotes her saying something similar. She later went on to repeatedly claim that she actually won, as stated in the other four reliable sources, meaning she did not concede. In fact, just yesterday CNN stated [13] that she still has not conceded. (2) Kemp has held only three political positions in his lifetime, and he resigned from one of them, so stating that he "refused to resign" is a BLP violation by completely misrepresenting reality. I kept the part saying that he refused to resign during the election but did so after it concluded, because no lead of an article on a politician should fail to mention that the politician resigned from one of their only offices. (3) "restrictions on voting" is not whatsoever equivalent to "limiting voting rights," which again is a BLP violation for the lead, considering that voting by mail is not a "right" according to reliable sources [14]. "Voting" is a right that can be "restricted" under the law in certain ways, including requiring ID to vote by mail and limiting the number of ballot drop boxes, which add a few minutes to hours of inconvenience for a select number of people, not taking away their right to vote completely. ID was already required for in-person voting, early voting was actually expanded under the law, and people can still get water from poll workers or self serve stations, [15] which are all far more minor changes than "limiting voting rights". Bill Williams 23:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Snooganssnoogans [16] this time I only slightly edited most of the wording, not deleting any info that was previously in the article, which I apologize for doing before you objected to it. I thought some of the info in the lead was less important than other things, but I understand keeping it. Anyway, I added "refused to concede" with five sources condensed into a single reference, "per county" for the number of ballot boxes since some gained them but some lost a significant number more, depending on the county, with an additional highly detailed source, and "resigned on November 8" in the sentence of Kemp being declared the winner following the election, again I kept the part stating that he refused to resign during the election and was criticized for doing so. I also slightly edited some other wording, including moving the sentence on the 2018 election higher up, since two parts on him cancelling and putting a hold on voter registrations were before this sentence, which did not make sense in chronological order. Bill Williams 23:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Separately, I removed BLP violations that used specific individual's insults and opinion articles to make substantial claims that Kemp engaged in voter suppression. I replaced these with multiple reliable sources and clarified what the accusations criticized, including putting 53,000 voter registrations on hold from applicants who were 70% black, and purging 670,000 registrations from voter rolls. Using direct quotes that accuse Kemp of voter suppression from individuals who are not notable, i.e. three random political scientists, does not add to the allegations, which are already clearly stated, but instead is a BLP violation by insulting Kemp in Wikipedia's voice by calling him "incompetent", an "enemy of democracy", and an "expert on voter suppression" when most reliable sources do not say anything remotely similar. As the fact check states, claims of voter suppression must be clarified with the facts on his actions, and the reliable sources simply state that he has been accused of voter suppression for specific reasons, not insulting him or stating that he suppressed voters. Bill Williams 00:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Mass scrubbing of content sourced to recognized experts and peer-reviewed publications

The editor Bill Williams has repeatedly scrubbed content sourced to peer-reviewed publications and/or recognized experts in this article. The editor claims that it's a BLP violation to add attributed statements to recognized experts. This is an inexplicable and inaccurate understanding of BLP. The single best sources for Wikipedia articles are peer-reviewed publications authored by recognized experts. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

What makes this behavior particularly galling and WP:TENDENTIOUS is that the editor has (1) repeatedly insisted that it's fringe to characterize Kemp's actions as voter suppression, yet the editor scrubs peer-reviewed publications on that very topic, and (2) the editor is simultaneously [rightfully] restoring content sourced to peer-reviewed publications in a separate ongoing dispute on another article. [17] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
No, there are already two experts cited as stating that Kemp engaged in voter suppression during the 2018 election. The additional three experts, which means you totaled quoting and citing five experts in a single paragraph, simply insulted Kemp by calling him "incompetent" and an "enemy of democracy." This adds absolutely nothing to the paragraph besides violating BLP by implying something in Wikipedia's voice that reliable sources do not generally refer to him as. The paragraph is on accusations of voter suppression, and already has enough information to describe them accurately. Bill Williams 02:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It's bizarre to argue that the article should only quote two recognized experts because quoting additional peer-reviewed publications and experts would make the content inconsistent with some kind of theme that you believe is in reliable sources: these are reliable sources! Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Two individuals insulted Kemp in the quotes that you added, which I do not see as any sort of benefit to the readers of this article, especially since these insults are not notable. You cannot simply consider if some random individual is credible, but quoting them requires it be notable to some degree, which their insults were not. One of these sources was literally an opinion article [18] which is a complete BLP violation to use as an insult against Kemp in the article as if it is somehow a credible fact. And the other person calling him "incompetent" is again not relevant for this article, as it was rarely repeated by reliable sources, with the only one I could find being an opinion article [19]. Bill Williams 02:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Why do you repeatedly say that these are random people? They are recognized experts. The Anderson op-ed is an attributed statement – it's not stated in Wikipedia's voice, so your claims of BLP violation are hollow. The censoring of Hasen's Yale University Press book is particularly egregious, given that it's a peer-reviewed book by a prominent expert on election law who covers the Georgia 2018 election at great length in the book. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
"Recognized experts" is meaningless if their claims are controversial and not backed by other reliable sources, only your original research that you conducted to determine their reliability. Wikipedia policy states that you cannot use opinion articles to make undue claims unless these claims are repeated in reliable sources, especially ones insulting a living person. Reliable sources do not refer to Kemp as an "enemy of democracy" so this is completely undue for the article, and again reliable sources do not repeat the claim that Kemp was "incompetent" so just because one Yale writer said it, does not make it notable enough to be in the article. Bill Williams 02:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I punted this to the BLP noticeboard: [20] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree with Bill. I am new to this whole Wikipedia thing, so forgive my vague understanding of Wikipedia policy, but I do think that having multiple opinion sources on a bio article seems both redundant and gratuitous to some idealized version of objectivity we want to uphold. The second quote seems even more pointed and irrelevant to who Kemp is and what he does on a substantiated, factual basis. Personally, I would favor keeping one quote but not both; does that sound like a consensus we can agree to? ( talk) 03:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Tylerf2022 I kept a quote from two individuals stating that Kemp engaged in the worst voter suppression in the 2018 election year, since that is a claim directly relating to the section of this article and not an ad hominem attack, while I removed the other two that insulted Kemp by calling him "incompetent" and an "enemy of democracy". Bill Williams 03:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Gotcha. I would still be in favor of finding a more nuanced quote on Kemp, but it’s really unnecessary in terms of his biography. ( talk) 03:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

[21] the quote is cited literally no where else on google besides Wikipedia and his own book [22], so how is it notable for the article? Bill Williams 04:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

As I said on WP:BLPN, if your issue is with the quote specifically, it can be paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim. But that's not a reasonable argument to omit an otherwise reliable non-opinion source entirely. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It is entirely his opinion that Kemp is "incompetent" as this claim is not repeated often by reliable sources, only opinion articles, and this specific quote is not cited anywhere on the internet. Even if you do not include a direct quote, the issue is still that Hasen's opinion on the matter is unnecessary and undue, since two experts' opinions and a detailed description of Kemp's actions is already in that paragraph, so having an unnoteworthy opinion that personally insults Kemp adds no benefit to the article. Bill Williams 02:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

NPOV problems

Looking just at the editing since the May 3 protection because of vandalism: I'm seeing skewed use of references, if not outright original research to create a pov not in the actual sources. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I would agree; the content here is extremely suspect, especially for a WP:BLP. The lengthy section on the 2018 election goes counter to what reliable sources say about the race, and far outshadows any other single amount of content in the article, including the entire section's on Kemp's Governorship and political positions. I found a specific example of the article claiming Kemp "violated the law" when the source said no such thing - a fairly egregious BLP violation. At minimum, this entire section needs to be severely trimmed to stick to what reliable sources say and avoid content that either isn't related to Kemp specifically. It's abundantly clear that Democrats do not like his practices as SoS, but an entire section about that is severely out of whack imo. A couple of paragraphs explaining Democratic objections and the opinions of reliable sources that say the election wasn't stolen would be justified imo; the opinions of Democrats and liberal advocacy groups only carry so much weight. Toa Nidhiki05 17:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I've placed a recommendation below. This specifically keeps in the major allegations from Democratic groups (voter purges and voters placed on inactive rolls) as well as Kemp's counter-claims, and closes with an analysis from political scientists. It does so by sticking entirely to highly-reliable sources and avoiding more skewed ones like Huffington Post or Mother Jones. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The use of the Politifact reference seems skewed against the main points of the actual reference. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Elaborate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
It's not being used for it's main points, and those main points are being challenged throughout the section. One might to so far as to say that the section is taking Kemp's pov up as a soapbox for him. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
That’s a really selective and unusual analysis not grounded in reality. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
That's what I'm saying about how the reference is being used, yes. I didn't want to use such inflammatory language though. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The use of quotes in that manner seems UNDUE and a misuse of them. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

My recommendation

Kemp was accused by Democrats of voter suppression during the 2018 gubernatorial election between him and Stacey Abrams. [1] [2] [3] Political scientists Michael Bernhard and Daniel O'Neill described Kemp's actions as the worst case of voter suppression in that election year. [4] The allegations arose from Kemp's actions as Secretary of State: a few weeks before the election, he put 53,000 voter registration applications on hold, with 70% of the applicants being African American. [5] [6] [7] [8] Kemp denied engaging in voter suppression, stating that he was following federal and state law to update voter rolls with accurate information [9] [7] and noting that the pending voters would be able to vote on Election Day "if they meet all the state’s other identification requirements". [5] Additionally, Kemp's office had purged 1.4 million inactive voters from voter rolls during his tenure, which Kemp's office referred to as "voter roll maintenance" and Kemp's opponents referred to as "voter roll purges". [6]

As a result of the controversies surrounding the 2018 Georgia midterms Kemp's gubernatorial victory has been referred to by critics as illegitimate. [10] Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post noted such claims are an "an article of faith among Democrats", and that rejecting these claims had equally become an article of faith among Republicans. [11] These claims have been rejected by political scientists and news outlets; the Atlanta-Journal Constitution said that "no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams". [12] Speaking to the Washington Post, political scientist Charles S. Bullock III said claims of a stolen election were "not based on fact but will continue to be articulated by Abrams since it helps mobilize her supporters", while Richard Hasen took issue with Kemp's job performance but said that he had seen "no good social science evidence that efforts to make it harder to register and vote were responsible for Kemp’s victory over Abrams in the Georgia gubernatorial race". [11] A USA Today fact check noted that the actions Kemp's office took during the election "can be explained as routine under state and federal law". [13] Speaking to PolitiFact, Hasen said that "I have seen no good evidence that the suppressive effects of strict voting and registration laws affected the outcome of the governor’s races in Georgia and Florida" and suggested Democrats "cool it" with claims the election was stolen. [14]

References

  1. ^ "Ga. election official off base on election interference". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on October 12, 2018. Retrieved October 11, 2018.
  2. ^ "Georgia secretary of state fighting accusations of disenfranchising minority voters". mcclatchydc. Archived from the original on October 12, 2018. Retrieved October 11, 2018.
  3. ^ "Brian Kemp's Lead in Georgia Needs an Asterisk". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on November 8, 2018. Retrieved November 9, 2018.
  4. ^ Bernhard, Michael; O'Neill, Daniel (2019). "Trump: Causes and Consequences". Perspectives on Politics. 17 (2): 317–324. doi: 10.1017/S1537592719000896. ISSN  1537-5927.
  5. ^ a b Herndon, Astead W. (2018-10-11). "Complaints of Voter Suppression Loom Over Georgia Governor's Race". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  6. ^ a b "Voting rights become a flashpoint in Georgia governor's race". AP NEWS. 2021-04-20. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  7. ^ a b Lee, Ella. "Fact check: Post online about Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's 2018 win is partly false". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Niesse was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference :5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Leonhardt, David (November 19, 2018). "Opinion - Was Georgia's Election 'Legitimate'?". Archived from the original on December 12, 2018. Retrieved March 13, 2019 – via NYTimes.com.
  11. ^ a b https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/30/did-racially-motivated-voter-suppression-thwart-stacey-abrams/
  12. ^ https://www.ajc.com/news/scattered-problems-emerge-georgia-voting/oQxJq2DOKu8o32pd0mvAxN/
  13. ^ Lee, Ella (November 18, 2020). "Fact check: Post online about Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's 2018 win is partly false". USA TODAY. Retrieved February 28, 2022.
  14. ^ Sherman, Amy (May 10, 2019). "PolitiFact - Kamala Harris says voter suppression kept Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum out of office. Really?". PolitiFact. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
Could you format all the refs with author, publisher, and publication date to make it easier for new editors to review, and fill in the empty refs? -- Hipal ( talk) 18:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The first sentence of the recommendation misuses the references and contains SYN/OR to further Kemps POV (which the Politio ref disproves). -- Hipal ( talk) 20:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please provide specifics. This text is mostly based off current wording. Toa Nidhiki05 20:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Please ask questions building upon what I've already written. -- Hipal ( talk) 23:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Brian_Kemp&oldid=1207945759"