Talk:George Allen (American politician)/Archive 1

message: I can't believe there is no talk page for this article. For someone that people think will be the next Republican presidential candidate, there's not much here. I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction here (yes I know WP is not a crystal ball): Allen-Rice would be a winning ticket for the right, even if HRC does run. Just thought I'd go on record so when it happens, I can have bragging rights. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be wrong now that they have visual proof that he is a rampant racist w/r to his macaca incident. John wesley 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LV comment

message: With the war on terror, Americans will want a strong leader with a military background. When it comes time to pull the lever, Hillary, her lack of international and military experience will make her too weak for voters. George Allen is in the same boat.  Gilluiani's pro-choice stance is too liberal for the GOP and the nation is not ready (I am) for a female, black president, with no prior service record (maybe in peace time).  That leaves a possible McCain / Kerry show down in 2008 with McCain winning easily.
:McCain has done almost everything possible to piss-off the Republican base.  He can't get nominated unless he goes ahead and joins the Democrats.  All George Allen needs to do is to satisfy the Republican base with his words and actions, and he's a shoo-in to be the next president.
--Bedford 13:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, McCain will never get the Republican nomination. And I think the United States is ready for a female President, even a Black one. The righties already love her, and she would almost for sure pull votes from the Dems solid base of African-Americans and women. And I doubt Kerry will get the Democratic nomination after the beating he (more specifically, his campaign) took last time. Okay... no more of this talk, back to writing articles. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, this page isn't to discuss George Allen, it's to discuss the article about him.  I agree with Lord Voldemort's comment: "no more of this talk".  For general political conversations, please check out Democratic Underground or Free Republic (those actual websites, not our articles about them). JamesMLane 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No military, no presidency  

message: So the fact that he's divorced should be mentioned
--grazon 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it, but I haven't found the name of his first wife, the date of the marriage, the date of the divorce, or whether there were any children.  All I can find is that USA Today says the divorce occurred "in the early 1980s".  We should try to get the full information. JamesMLane 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  this guy is becoming important 

message: There is no need for a quotes section in this article. The one quote provided is neither notable nor truly NPOV. What is the point of the quote? To show he swears? To show he cares about money for Virginia? I just don't get it. Wikiquotes is to be used for random direct quotations. Might I suggest you add this there. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: Can we get some more on his early life and what his motivations were for getting into politics? He's going to run for President, so we might as well get to know him a little better. Ryanluck 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Allen become a fan of "southern" culture or "western"?  I don't want to register to read the article, but the talk about Hee Haw and cowboy boots sounds more country/western than just southern. --Ajdz 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fascination with Confederate flags sounds like being a fan "southern culture" to me. john k 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus the whole becoming a UVA good old boy thing. john k 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you don't want to register to read the article, why on earth are you questioning the paraphrase of the article by somebody who did?  If you want to see if the paraphrase is accurate, read the article.  If you don't want to read the article, then don't make comments about what you think it probably says. john k 04:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I'm asking here, not changing the text.  Relax. --Ajdz 18:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life 

message: Part of my recent edit regarding Allen's display of the Confederate flag as a teenager, which Allen has acknowledged and confirmed in one respect (the yearbook lapel pin) and has stated is "entirely possible" in another (the car flag, which was confirmed via an eyewitness), keeps getting removed.  The information is verifiable and sourced.  I would like to know why, exactly, it keeps getting removed. - Jersyko·talk 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, let's assume good faith.  I am not attempting a "political hatchet" job in re Allen.  I actually know very little about him, or at least I did before I read the New Republic article about him.  My intent is merely to present relevant, verifiable, sourced information.  The information I presented adheres to all of those criteria, as it is descriptive of Allen's early life (in the "early life" section of the article) and is verifiable via the source cited.  It's even been at least partially confirmed by Allen's office itself! (see the article)  Finally, yes, I have reverted your deletion of the information 3 times.  You've removed it more than three times, as another editor has stepped in to revert your deletion as well, thus you are in violation of the three revert rule that I've already warned you about on your talk page.  I will not report your violation as I know you are a new user here, but please keep it in mind in the future.  Let's discuss this here, not through a revert war.  As it stands now, at least one other editor agrees with me that the information belongs.  Let's see what others have to say. - Jersyko·talk 04:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason that no one is trying to post the fact about the lynching apology bill is that the bill is already mentioned in the article, and in fact has been since this edit in November 2005.  There's no justification for anyone who dislikes Allen to try to censor that information (and I don't think there's been any attempt to censor it).  By the same token, there's no justification for anyone who likes Allen to try to censor the information about his pro-Confederate past and his brush with the law arising from his racist vandalism in high school. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said, "I can find plenty of sources that claim that Armstrong never walked on the moon, but rather the whole thing was filmed in a television studio."  But can you find reliable sources (like a respected newspaper or political journal like TNR) that make that claim?  And has Armstrong himself admitted that it was true, like Allen's office confirming the flag lapel pin and saying the car flag was "entirely possible"???  Wikipedia is not the place for "smear politics."  It is also not the place to carefully choose to include facts that are only praiseworthy of political candidates.  The article mentions his use of the confederate flag when he was in high school, but NOWHERE does it say "Allen is a racist."  In fact, the article mentions that Allen supported the lynching apology bill last year.  The reader is left to form his or her own opinion of Allen; the article is merely presenting the facts from reputable sources. - Jersyko·talk 14:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The New Republic is a reliable source per Wikipedia policy.  You are not, however, only blanking information cited to TNR, but also information cited to the Washington Post and other well-known news outlets.  The information is verified and relevant to this article.  Your repeated blanking is vandalism. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate flag 

message: This article's name has been changed recently by Calmypal. The first time the reason was: "Consistency with other politician George Wigram Allen" (refering to a 19th century Australian politician). The second time with the reason: "I don't see a compelling reason to keep this at George Allen (politician). People looking for him there will still find him, via a disambiguaton page, which will not be unusual for anyone pare"
With hundreds of articles linked to this page, and the potential for this article to become quite active in the future, I would like comments on what the proper name should be for this article. Should it remain at George Allen (politician), where is has been for most of its history this year, or at George Felix Allen, the name preferred by  Calmypal? Or something else? 
Whatever the choice, it is not so great to make people go through an extra disambiguation page if he is now the primary person with this name that people will be searching for. So perhaps George Allen should be made a redirect to this article and the disambiguation page put at George Allen (disambiguation). NoSeptember talk 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was cut off. The second reason should be followed by, "nthesising it."   Anyway, NoSeptember's done a good job summarising the situation and I'll wait for feedback. All I have to add is that I would not have moved it again if someone had reverted me within an hour, even a day, after I first moved it. By Wikipedia standards, a week is ages, and I took this as implicit approval. - Calmypal (T) 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During a slow period (and pre-midterm elections is a deliberately slow period for potential presidential candidates), a week before being reverted doesn't indicate much of anything :-). NoSeptember talk 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the George Allen page should go directly to this article, and a disambiguation notice be placed at the top.  Allen's prominence can only grow in the coming years, and even now, he is by far the most prominent of the "George Allens"--RWR8189 01:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Jkatzen 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  A disambig link at the top would suffice. - Jersyko·talk 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This George Allen is the only living one with a Wikipedia article, and is surely the most prominent. I recommend that we vote on moving this to "George Allen" and linking to "George Allen (disambiguation)" at the top of the page. — Elembis 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the preceeding comments. This article should be at George Allen with a disambig link at the top. NoSeptember talk 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; he never uses his middle name, and is also never referred to in the media by his full name. Article titles are supposed to reflect the name most commonly used. If he's nominated for president, then he should be under George Allen, with the others noted under George Allen (disambiguation); until that happens, he should be under George Allen (politician) (or arguably George Allen (U.S. politician)). MisfitToys 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. I considered moving it to George Allen (politician), but there was a Canadian MP of that name, as well -- what about George Allen (U.S. politician)? —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name change

message: Sorry, I should have posted here first.  I removed this material because I thought the context of its inclusion was POV.  Unlike the Confederate Flag material, which is undisputed by Allen, and supported by photographic evidence, these allegations are based only on the word of Allen's sister and, to my knowledge, disputed by Allen.  I don't mean they're not true, I just think they should not be given as much weight here as undisputed facts.  I think they probably belong in the Wikipedia entry, I just don't think they should be one of the first pieces of information about the subject.  But I'm willing to leave this up to the judgment of more experienced editors.  Lucky Adrastus 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clean up the POV issues a little by making them their own subsection and clearly noting several times that the events allegedly occurred. Jkatzen 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I think these are pretty good changes. I still think this might somehow be better placed lower in the article or something, since the allegations are so inflammatory, but I'm sure that if Allen becomes a major candidate, they'll be new information to fill the article out.  Lucky Adrastus 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: John Kenny -- Thanks for the comments and edits.  I think you are right that no one here has read the book (well at least I haven't).  As for evidence of "dispute", Allen's "disputing" comes from the Lizza article itself.  Lizza asked him about the book and Allen responded "It's the perspective of the youngest child, who is a girl".  I think that counts as disputing.  But you're also right that it comes off as akward to constantly repeat that these are allegations.  I think the way you put it is fine and clear.  I still feel that the effective prominence of the allegations isn't really "fair" to Allen (who I don't much like, whatever it's worth).  It seems to me like the kind of information that belongs in a controversy section or something like that, probably after his accomplishments in office, which are arguably more "important".  Perhaps it's the repeat of the "dentist" quote, which isn't an action taken by Allen, but rather an accusation by his sister. Lucky Adrastus 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds to me as though Allen is very clearly not disputing any of his sister's factual allegations.  That doesn't mean that he is admitting that they happened, but he's also not saying "I never held my sister by the feet over Niagara Falls or threw my brother through a glass door," which would be how I would understand him "disputing" the allegations.  If anything, I'd say that Allen is essentially admitting that these events took place, but disputing his sister's interpretation of them. john k 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations by Allen's Sister 

message: Do we have any sources that confirm that he has changed his position on the assualt weapons ban? At the bare minimum it would be nice to have a source for his current position. This issue could become part of a "conservatism test" in the primary.--Victoria h 05:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What primary would that be?  John Broughton 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  position on assault weapons ban 

message: I temporarilly removed this article from :Category:American lawyers because it never mentions him actually practicing law.  He might be licensed to practice, but there's no mention of it in the article which means that, currently, the article shouldn't be in that category. (It's not verified in the article, and he's apparently not notable for practicing law.)  
Now if the article is expanded with verified information about him practicing law in his state, then go ahead and place him in the appropriate subcategory of :Category:American lawyers by state.Dugwiki 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporarilly removed from American lawyers cat 

message: I'd like to make an argument that this small section should be removed.  It's language is NPOV, but I don't think it is terribly relevant.  It basically accounts to repeating a press release from a single group criticizing Allen.  And it's really a criticism of Robertson, who, while certainly deserving criticism, in no more connected to Allen than to most other prominent Republican politicians.  There also hasn't been any kind of ensuing criticism of Allen in this regard, certainly it hasn't been a big press story.
At the least, Allen's response through his press secretary should be included.  If there isn't any disagreement, I'll remove the section in a few days.  Lucky Adrastus 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you, and I'm not an Allen fan.  It seems to be a minor controversy at best.  I'm going to go ahead and remove it. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm no fan of Allen's either.  This just didn't strike me as Wikipedia material. Lucky Adrastus 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Pat Robertson Section 

message: Re: the intro: honestly, to include the controversy up there at this point -- when it hasn't even managed to make headlines for a full news cycle -- seems obviously biased. Can we at least wait until some other reliable sources -- say, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Virginian-Pilot, the Roanoke Times, The Hotline, take your pick -- run stories on this and develop it further before we push it into the lede? --GGreeneVa 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the story had not been reported in the Washington Post, I would agree with you (article here).  The fact that it has, however, makes the story verifiable in a reliable source.  I know there's a lot of blog chatter out there about this, and we need to be diligent to ensure that blog speculation does not make its way into the article.  However, since it is not original research and is described in this article in a way that is in line with the WaPo article, making it, in my opinion, neutral for now (though perhaps it should be tweaked), it is appropriate to mention it. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh -- I know about the Post article (sorry I didn't clarify). I wasn't picking a fight about whether to include it in the article; it verifiably happened, it's newsworthy, so by all means, yeah, let's put it in. But as for putting it in the intro: to me, the story doesn't rise to that level of significance yet, because it hasn't had time to develop. In a day or so, once we see where this is heading, who knows? But while it's article-ready, it's not intro-worthy yet, IMHO. --GGreeneVa 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault for not noticing that you were referring to the intro only, actually.  I think you're probably right on that point.  I will remove the description from the intro for now. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Per comments on a political blog (sorry, misplaced the link): apparently the three-syllable pronunciation is common in southern France (cf. the similar pronunciation of the final syllable in "Frère Jacques"). Billbrock 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section couldn't get any more POV. It doesn't matter how Allen's comment could be interpreted, it matters what he meant. "Macaca" could also mean 'idiot POV pushing liberals,' but obviously that isn't what he meant. Anything off topic will be removed. Haizum 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably if Allen let slip a racist comment, he isn't going to be honest about what it meant.  The possible meanings of "Macaca" or "Macaque" are relevant to this story, especially given the French pronounciation, his French language background, and his family's Tunisian background.  Removing the sections pertaining to that are very POV on your part. - Aurostion 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to make a minor tweak to elide -- that is, skate around -- this point. Shouldn't affect POV. --GGreeneVa 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tramm Hudson could give Allen a few pointers on how to make an apology. Richardjames444 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Makaka' Controversy 

message: I have removed this in its entirety as these are personal opnions and have no place in an encyclopedia.  Many people may find Al Gore to be a an idiot, but that not would have any place in his article. Nnoppinger 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nnoppinger is referring to this section.  I commented above, but here it is again: Perhaps you're right about the Al Gore criticism, anyway, it seems like a minor criticism at best.  The other criticism in the "other criticisms" section, however, is sourced to the Washingtonian (magazine).  I'm not sold on its inclusion, but it seems that it would be at least somewhat more approrpriate for an encyclopedia article because it does have such a source.  In any event, I'm ok with the removal of that one subsection (though obviously not the entire "controversies" section). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, I don't see any NPOV violations in the main "Criticisms" section, although I do agree that the "other criticisms" section needs work. Before I remove the NPOV tag from the main section, can anyone point out to me what exactly is in violation of NPOV there? --Folksong 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Webbforsenate is clearly not a democratic operative--the user has continually vandalized this page by removing all criticism of Allen from the article.  Regarding User:Stirling Newberry, please try to assume good faith; one can have a defined political bias and still desire to adhere to Wikipedia policy in Wikipedia articles.  You may have a point in regard to undue weight.  I think the controversies section is appropriate, given the media play of several of these in major media outlets, but it does currently comprise nearly half the article.  I don't want to say that it certainly violates undue weight at the moment, as I would like to hear the comments of other editors on the matter. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your points are convincing, modargo.  I support your proposed changes. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  I agree the Barr Laboratories thing is notable enough for the campaign page , since it does seem to be a relatively lively part of the campaign.  However, it would be better if it included whatever his campaign's response to the issue (which I don't know right now of the top of my head).  I.E. did he sell the stock, issue a statement clarifying/apologizing or whatever. Lucky Adrastus 16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice job!  I like the Barr Labs section in the campaign article too.  Lucky Adrastus 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I slightly re-wrote the sister's allegations part because I thought it now felt a little lacking in context.  Now I'm wondering if maybe it should get it's own contorversies section, but in this (or a similiar) shortened form?  It might be fairer to place it lower in the article under Controversies, than near the top under Early Years.  I let you or someone else make that call. Lucky Adrastus 17:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that recent "politician X owned stock in company politician X is critical of!" controversies (both with George Allen and Ned Lamont) have borderline notability.  Nonetheless, I suppose it has been covered by the media and should be mentioned, though my opinion is that it doesn't need its own section here, for now, unless it gets more media attention.  I'm looking at the Confederate Flag section now.  Can you point out where the article makes "left-wing assumptions about the flag and its connoatations"?  Perhaps I'm missing something.   I have no opinion on Allen's sister's book or its contents.  I haven't read it.  If your desire is to get someone to provide a link to relevant text from the book or otherwise confirm its contents, I'm with you there. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that I agree.  I could say "John has a long association with Mother Teresa," for instance.  I don't see the article debating the merits of the flag, but rather merely pointing out Allen's association with it.  If the article did discuss the merits of the flag, however, I would agree that this was inappropriate.  I'm just not seeing it here. (for what it's worth, Broderick is mentioned in the Clinton article, and should be, in my opinion) · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see what's biased about that. It's a fact that he has a long associated with the confederate flag - it's documented extensively in the referenced articles. If you think that's a negative thing, that's solely becuase you think the confederate flag is a negative thing. If that sentence were biased, then reporting that anyone is associated with anything would be biased. Once again, reporting on the fact that a person is associated with something that some people consider negative is not biased. If it were, than any article that reported information about people associated with any controversial policy, organization, person, or symbol would be "biased", and I'm pretty sure that's not the case. modargo 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Using the Bill Clinton article you mentioned, I think a very appropriate comparison is to the "Investigation and impeachment" headings and that "Other controversies" section. Information being reported about his actions that some people considered scandalous and inappropriate. Would you call those sections of the Bill Clinton article biased? Presenting a clear discussion of a controversy about someone is not biased. modargo 00:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other criticisms 

message: Since so many are editing this article lately, it's hard to add a good edit summary without getting an edit conflict.  The reasons for my revert are: 1. POV wording (using the word "taunt"/"taunting" (again)) 2. No need for the whole quote.  As long as the context is given, the whole quote is not needed. It's an article about a U.S. Senator first and foremost; let's not let this section overwhelm the article, when it will certainly be trimmed down later, as this incident dies down.  Thanks. Ufwuct 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the POV (I agree it was POV) but left the full quote.  I find the context interesting and relevant, and believe it does not overwhelm the article.  If anything in the Macaca section is to be excised, I think the quote is the last thing that should be. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost positive it will be trimmed later on, but I'm not going to get in race in editing or reverting.  100+ edits in the last 24 hours is a bit too much stress for me.  And I'm not recommended losing the entire quote.  Do you really think the whole thing is necessary?  Especially since the video is available?  That makes it more like a transcript than a quotation. Ufwuct 00:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing frequency too quick

message: First: Does Sidarth have a mullet?  I haven't seen evidence that he does.  He might, but we need to verify this.  In the pictures I've seen, the back of his head is not visible.
Second: Pointing out that mullets are "common in the South" borders on original research, not least because it may be an erroneous assumption.  They're prevalent in many rural areas, as a drive through the backwaters of many northern states will reveal.  It's also irrelevant to the article. I see it's been put back again, so I'd be interested to see some evidence of this elusive mullet.  Thanks.--Birdmessenger 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've done some research into this very important issue and found that Sidarth describes his own haircut as a mullet.  Fine.  I still have to object to the text noting that these are "common in the South." --Birdmessenger 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He calls his own haircut a mullet...  The poor kid must have missed 1985 - 1995: The Age of the Mullet.  Now THOSE were mullets.  (See Billy Ray Cyrus).  --AStanhope 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Business up front and party in the back, not that I would have ever had one. :) --StuffOfInterest 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mullet (haircut)|mullets]] and their prevalence in the South 

message: Removed the last sentence" ...Gilmore repudiated..." as it is factually incorrect. As reported in the January 31, 2004, Washingtom Times, "Confederate History Month Rises Again" Christina Bellantoni —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nnoppinger (talk • contribs) .
Put it back. Cited source.  TNR is reliable. Please provide factual evidence to contradict. modargo 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nnoppinger, please don't reproduce the entire article here, as it raises copyright concerns.  Perhaps provide a web link to the article instead, and quote it selectively to make your point. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That article specifically backs up the claim that Gilmore changed the proclamation to one about both sides of the Civil War (i.e., it denounced slavery in addition to celebrating Confederate culture) from Allen's that only commemorated Confederate culture (and did not mention slavery). modargo 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is true that "repudiated" is somewhat POV. As such, I have changed it to "changed". modargo 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor 

message: We need page citations for this section:
Allen's younger sister Jennifer Allen alleges in her memoir Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter (Random House Publishing, 2000) that Allen sadistically attacked his younger siblings during his childhood. Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter Contains editorial reviews She claims that Allen held her by her feet over Niagara Falls; struck her boyfriend in the head with a pool cue; threw his brother Bruce through a glass sliding door; tackled his brother Gregory, breaking his collarbone; and dragged Jennifer upstairs by her hair. In the book, she wrote, "George hoped someday to become a dentist . . . George said he saw dentistry as a perfect profession--getting paid to make people suffer." C56C 00:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jennifer Allen's book  

message: This article is not NPOV at all. Indeed, I think it approaches a smear job on Allen, because presents the facts of all the George Allen controversies in the most negative light possible. Oh, there are gratuitous swipes at Allen as well ("In 1994, George Allen endorsed a convicted felon, Oliver North, for the U.S. Senate), but what I am most concerned about is the fact that all of these mini-controversies are presented without any attempt to present Allen's side of the story. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
:I agree. The same can be said for other articles in Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions for improving the article, such as giving "Allen's side" of his storied affection for the confederate flag and his love of cute memorabilia such as the hangman's noose?--RattBoy 09:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, which controversies do you have a problem with, and what's the phrases or lack of perspective you have a problem? Arbusto 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait a little while longer before I pull the POV tag off, but POV issues must be discussed if you put the tag on. Arbusto 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The POV nature of this article is currently being discussed in two places.  Please see the section called POV for the suggestions being made to improve the article to NPOV standards.  Thanks. Ufwuct 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV concerns 

message: Does it qualify as a liberal advocacy group? If so does that make opposing racism a strictly liberal value? I dont think so. Thats why I question the edit. Maybe I missed your point. Jasper23 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Poverty Law Center 

message: The anon who keeps posting that Allen is Jewish in the article posted this message on my talk page:
Jersyko removed a link as supporting evidence due to the link allegedly quoting Wikipedia as a source.  This is a disingeuous interpretation of the article at that link: http://www.forward.com/articles/alleged-slur-casts-spotlight-on-senator%E2%80%99s-jewis/
The article does not state or imply that Wikipedia is a source for its information.
The passage in the article which mentions Wikipedia is the following: "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows users to draft and edit the entries, takes Allen’s mother’s Judaism as a given, saying that “Henrietta Lumbroso was a Jewish immigrant of Tunisian/Italian/French background.”"
It is clear from the wording of the above passage that the author intended only to illustrate the phenomenon of Wikipedia users assuming George Allen's Jewish heritage.  The Author does not express or imply that her intent is to quote Wikipedia as a source for her information.  "The Foward," the newspaper in which the article appears, is a respected publication that has the same standards as similar widely-distributed news sources.
Jersyko's decision to remove the link and the update to the George Allen page was a clear case of wanton and irresponsible editing.  Jersyko either did not read the article thoroughly, coming to the false conclusion that it intended its reference to Wikipedia to be considered a source, or he is abusing his privelege to edit and remove other users' posts.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) . 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unlikely that an unsourced journal article with "(Jewish?)" in its title establishes that the man is Jewish -- and, in fact, it does not. -- Jibal 12:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The insertion also mangles the sentence structure. I could accept perhaps "A Jew of French Tunisian descent" but stringing the words together to say "of French Tunisian Jewish descent" is straining the sentence. Beyond this, there is no indication that Allen was raised Jewish and so he is not really meriting the "Jewish Americans" category.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ufwuct.  Also, note that any information not sourced to reliable sources can be removed from an ariticle on a living person per an exception to WP:3RR.  A political blog is not a reliable source to demonstrate Allen's Jewishness.  I've requested protection for the article, fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sudden emergence of a sockfarm whose edits are identical to User:169.253.4.21 is a little disturbing, and likely could be considered disruption.--Rosicrucian 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that but have delayed labeling that user a sockpuppet, as it wasn't as quite blatantly obvious.  Ufwuct 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I hypothesized on Jersyko's talk page, I think this is a very experienced Wikipedian (see the oldest edits). Ufwuct 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's likely, I think. He recently was admonished if it was wise to edit using an IP connected to a state department computer, and suddenly there's not one of him but three.--Rosicrucian 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...state department computer..." — This is news to me.  Who admonished him/her?  The state department? ;)   Or Wikipedia? Ufwuct 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on his talkpage. --Rosicrucian 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's often interesting to see where the anons are coming in from.  There is a frequent negative-editor on Jim Webb's page coming from some national "stone" organization.  I guess Webb isn't popular among rock crushers. :) --StuffOfInterest 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've formally organized them under a single sock category. I've left it as suspected for now though, as they haven't proven abusive yet.--Rosicrucian 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been put under sprotect as a result -- how abusive does it have to get? -- Jibal 12:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first I was going to say that since these socks are registered the sprotect couldn't have been directed at them. However I suppose it would stop them, given that they're newly registered. Upon further examination they also seem to have been created specifically to circumvent 3RR and bait regular editors on this article into violating 3RR.--Rosicrucian 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish heritage? 

message: The article on George Allen is the most biased and slanted Wikipedia article I've ever seen.  
It should be deleted for the credibility of Wikipedia itself. 20:25, 9 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk • contribs) 
:Not very constructive unless you can give examples.--Rosicrucian 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several of us working to improve the article, rather than delete it altogether.  An all-or-nothing attitude, which has been demonstrated by some editors to this article is less than helpful. Ufwuct 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain what is biased and offer ways to improve the article. That is more constructive than attacks on wikipedia as a whole. Arbusto 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is "biased and slanted", should be deleted 

message: I have removed the assertion that both sides have claimed that the photo of Sidarth supports their position.  I requested a source (that both "sides" made this assertion) on August 17.  I did a quick google search before added the request for a source and couldn't find anything about Webb's campaign or Sidarth claiming that that photo supported their case (although Sidarth had claimed before that he had a mullet).  Since no one else has been able to come up with a source in that time, I changed the wording, removing the assertion that Sidarth's "side" had claimed that the photo backed up his previous assertion.
Also, I changed the wording to reflect that this photo of him shows something quite the opposite of what most people would consider a mullet.  A mullet (see pictures) is usually short in the front (and sometimes shorter on the sides), combined with longer hair at the bottom and the usually at the sides.  A mohawk, on other hand, is shaved on the sides (which Sidarth's hairstyle shows) and longer in the middle of the head, usually from the forehead all the way to the neck (which Sidarth's hairstyle shows).  Usually, the hair in the middle of the head sticks up in a Mohawk.  Sidarth's does not.  This is why I chose not to call it a mohawk, but describe it as not typical of a mullet.
I hope that my changes are not reverted, despite waiting 3 1/2 weeks for a source (and being open to discussion the whole time), and explaining my reasons for changes here.  Please let me know if you have comments (here).  Thanks.  Ufwuct 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I was about to mirror it on the Virginia election article, but I see you already have.--Rosicrucian 18:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Both sides have claimed...

message: I don't see how the comment violates WP:OWN. It seems appropriate to warn editors that the passage is not intended to be a full account of the event, and that updates are better served being placed on a different article.--Rosicrucian 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as an OWN issue either, but at the same time I don't see the comment helping.  People intent on adding more in will ignore the "main" template and add in anyway.  The same thing happens to the conspiracy theories section of the 9/11 attacks article almost daily.  Best you can do is try to move material over to the election article whenever you see it or delete the new additions if they are already covered in the election article. --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might edit it back in but a bit less strongly worded.--Rosicrucian 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I have. Took out the all-caps and just used it as a comment to remind editors that there is more content, it's just been moved.--Rosicrucian 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All caps were not intended to be emphatic, but just to show that it was not part of the rest of the text.  I've seen very similar notes in the page source before (when there was no more effective way to communicate the message) and notes at the top of talk pages (e.g., "please peruse the talk pages before"...), even in featured articles.  The comment was not intended to be directed at or even read by conspiracy theorists or those extremely committed to add their personal factoids or blurbs.  Anyway, thanks for rewriting the comment. Ufwuct 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence why I simply rephrased it to be less a "edit this way" notice and more a "you might want to check here if you think something's missing" comment. I can appreciate the spirit it was intended in, and as it's worded now it'd be hard to nix it for WP:OWN again.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN]]?