Talk:George Allen (American politician)/Archive 2

message: Link number 37 is broken. I could find no other story supporting the claim that Webb supported Allen in 2000.  .--User:Jkfp2004 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Webb's support of Allen in 2000

message: why does George Allen make public condemnations of the suggestion/revelation that he is part Jewish by birth? is he an anti-Semite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.62.72.192 (talk • contribs) .
: No, it was a pointless question that had no relevance in the debate. 200.119.237.58 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what Neo-Macacas would like you to believe; the question that begs consideration is not whether "Allen is Jewish" but instead "Why Allen reacted so ANGRILY  to the mere suggestion by "Jewish Press" that his mother "might" have been Jewish. Do you see a pattern of angry reactions here - to all the uncomfortable matters? The fact is that George Macaca Allen has himself made this an uncomfortable matter for himself; by going out on a limb to skirt the issue; howsoever trivial it might be. What else is he 'uncomfortable' or 'angry' about? MaCa 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being asked out of the blue whether you have Jewish heritage is a pointed question, and not one he should really have to answer. It really has no bearing on the election and is an intrusive thing to ask.--Rosicrucian 20:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A future Presidential candidate being asked if he is part Jewish certainly is a relevant question. Issues such as his total support for Israel and going to war against Iran makes it relevant.67.72.98.45 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your last statement quite naive and also quite offensive. At the least it should be reworded so you dont stereotype a whole ethnicity. You are looking at this whole situation the wrong way.Jasper23 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certainly not naive. Jewish power in the US Senate is part of the reason America is at war in the Middle East today.67.72.98.45 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Blame the jews, huh. Thats original. Here is where my part of the discussion ends. Have fun being what you are.Jasper23 16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaming Jews is so passé! Get with the program.  You don't blame Blacks because it's so transparent, blaming Hispanics and Arabs is a bit chic now, so you may want to avoid that.  I suggest blaming Samoans, Lapps or even the Maori for all of the world's problems.  Just avoid blaming WASPs, sedevacantist Catholics, the House of Saud, and Scientologists  as most problems are probably their fault,and they actually have the resources to kill you for revealing that. Arthurian Legend 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  67.72.98.45 is not wrong in her/his assertion; nor was Hitler wrong in his belief in blaming Jooz for German defeat in WW1. WW2 was precipitated by Joos; if not caused by them. Then there is Joo-financed wars throughout middle-ages in Europe. The turmoil in middle east is just another chapter in Joo-History. I guess the folks commenting here just read sanitized American history text books. That's just a POV; not necessarily mine or original. George Macaca Allen 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. If there weren't murder victims, there wouldn't be murders. It's the fault of those damn victims! They ought to be in jail, how unfair and selfish that they're dead. Gzuckier 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: George Allen - Question about Jewish Family History 

message: In light of the media attention afforded to Allen's reaction to a question about his possible Jewish ancestry, the subsection added to the article this afternoon (George Felix Allen#Mother's ethnicity) is appropriate.  Before, all we had was speculation about his possible roots, now we have something straight from Allen's mouth.  Thus, I think it should be in the article.   Now, regarding the specific wording of the subsection as it stands, I think that perhaps too much attention is paid to the speculative attempt to tie the possible ancestry to Macaca.  The third and fourth paragraphs, while referenced, are merely speculative, or at least present more speculation than is necessary.  The first two paragraphs of the subsection present the facts.  I think we could trim all or most of the last two and end up with a more succinct, less speculative description.  Anyone agree or disagree? · j e r s y k o talk · 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth paragraph in particular doesn't seem to belong there as the Macaca controversy is covered in the previous section.  I'd say paragraph four could be dropped completely and paragraph three could be edited down as the two issues don't need any mixing. --StuffOfInterest 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since this whole odd thing is getting a lot of random press, I thought that it should be added to this article Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, but I wasn't sure what the best way to describe it or if others think it is relevant so I was hoping for some other opinions. Remember 20:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Allen released a statement to The Forward today confirming his mother's speculated Jewish ethnicity. I've added it to this section of the article. --GGreeneVa 21:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Aforesaid paragraph regarding reasoning for what may be seen as overreacting to "aspersions" is not my speculation, as you point out, but is third person political speculation quoted from a reputable leftish publication and a reputable Jewish publication. His "clearing it up" doesn't dismiss the speculations, it is possibly the result of his having come to the same conclusions as the speculators, perhaps future events will show that one or the other of them was correct and there will be more to be said. Gzuckier 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish redux 

message: The Washington Post has another article on Allen's heritage and how he found out about it in August before the debate. . Some of this information should probably be added to the article to give a better timeline and the perspective of Allen's mother. Remember 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that. I saw the article and it mentioned explicitly that Allen's mother was raised Jewish, which wasn't in our article. Mad Jack 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if Etty Allen says she was raised Jewish, she can easily be considered more of a reliable source than her son on that particular point.--Rosicrucian 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. That article gives the blow-by-blow - mother raised Jewish, kind of put her background behind her when marrying a Christian in a heavily Christian area, doesn't tell children, etc. It explains also why Allen made the reply he did to that report (Fox). Mad Jack 20:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More random info on Allen's heritage 

message: Anyone care to comment on this?  To attempt to nip this in the bud yet again, I am NOT an Allen fan.  I'm merely attempting to make sure that this article adheres to Wikipedia policy.  I don't think the section I removed from the article was anywhere close to adhereing to WP:NPOV, and I'm not sure it belongs in the article anyway (instead of the 2006 election article).  If other editors think it is notable enough (I have no opinion in that regard), I would not be opposed to including a neutrally-worded section about this thing in whichever article is deemed appropriate.  But we need to answer these questions first, I think. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw it and was wondering if anyone else was thinking what I was thinking.  Please don't ever feel like you have to pledge allegiance to one side or the other, but if you feel like you want to pick sides or to announce neutrality, go ahead.  If someone feels the need to make assumptions about me, it's fine as long as they're reasonable civil.  Getting back on topic, I don't think more than a sentence would belong in this article, if anything at all.  The primary reason why the issue seems to have come up is the election (election cycle --> Vote Vets PAC ad --> AZ article + FactCheck --> MediaMatters "debunking"), so it belongs in the election article.  It seems like a lot of OR leaps in order to tie the pieces together.  Especially where a Wikipedia editor believes one source over two others.  I don't think Factcheck.org is known as a Republican outfit either, so I don't know what their motivation would be to lie.  Also, I don't know if this entire topic can be called controversy quite yet, except as an OR leap.  If a major news source picks it up, then I'd call it controversy. Ufwuct 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  This talk page seems a bit too "us vs. them" at times, and I've been accused, more than once, of being part of one "side" when all I really want is for this article to adhere to policy.  My point in denying that i'm on one particular "side" here is to prevent the subject from coming up again. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you act reasonably and according to the rules, reasonable editors will notice and the rest...you shouldn't worry about it too much. Ufwuct 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong, though. I do feel passionately about some things.  But I try to stay out of the fray, as it's no fun getting too worked up about it here (which is why many of my edits are on less controversial topics like interstates and Greenland).  I will definitely pick sides in some other elections, but I've seen enough negative info to dissuade me from being enthusiastic about either Webb or Allen.  Cheers! Ufwuct 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body armor