Talk:George Wallace

message: The article states in "Change of views before final term" that Emory Folmar would have been the first "Republican to be elected Alabama governor for the first time in the state's history" but this is contradicted by the List of Governors of Alabama which have William Hugh Smith and David P. Lewis as the 21st and 23rd governors of Alabama, both republicans, can some one please clarify this discrepancy?--Liamdavies 2:24, 8 November 2007 (+10GMT)
:Good catch. Those were Reconstruction-era Republicans, when many former Confederates were disenfranchised, briefly breaking Democratic hold. I've corrected the article. CAVincent (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Republican

message: Shouldn't there be some reference to Wallace's involvement in the outcome of the Selma to Montgomery marches?  I was surprised to find no mention of it--Stvfetterly 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing some history

message: What Wallace was in during WW II technically wasn't the U.S. Air Force, which didn't formally begin until 1947.  He was in either the 'Army Air Corps' or the 'Army Air Force', which were certainly the predecessors to the USAF.  Also, did he "enlist" or was he a commissioned officer (like most but certainly not all college-educated personnel were)?  His rank would be a nice detail – and if he were actually a pilot, then he was almost certainly an officer.Rlquall 02:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he was in the United States Army Air Forces.  There never was an "Army Air Force."  (See the extensive discussion at the USAAF link).--Jpbrenna 03:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the prior editor meant the USAAF by 'Army Air Force' (personal attack removed) 123.255.22.234 (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A very minor point

message: With regards to:
: It was perhaps because of the constant pain from his injuries that Wallace realized the harm his racist rhetoric and views had caused African Americans.
This seems to be to be entirely speculative -- it's not obvious that paralysis would lead to an understanding of racial oppression -- so unless anyone can justify it (e.g. with something Wallace said) I will remove it soon.  --Saforrest 20:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
:It certainly seems to be true (most of my family on my father's side lives in Alabama), but it is certainly a matter of perception and speculation, not of fact, and I would suggest that it should be removes unless someone come up with documented evidence very soon.  Rlquall 00:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think it's also speculative that he ever truly believed he'd done anything wrong. His "turnaround" happened later in life after he'd lost close friends...and he could well have just been trying to tie up loose ends and improve his image as the end of life approached. You could say his actions changed, (long after the fact, as it were), but we'll never know what his real stance was, inside. Codenamemary (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation

message: What is this "brain fever" the article talks about?  It sounds like he had malaria.  Maybe he was treated with Atabrine, which, if the dosage isn't very carefully controlled, bores holes in your brain and can give you nerve and heart damage.  They used it a lot during the war, and didn't realize how bad its side effects were until it was too late.  They just new it helped with quinine-resistant strains of malaria, which they were desperate to find a medication for at the time. Anyway, the stuff was often bad news: Charles Orde Wingate went nutso after they gave it to him and tried to kill himself in the hospital.  So maybe that's where Wallace's nerve damage come from?  Can somebody find out?  "Brain fever" is pretty vague.  Lots of politicians who never heard a shot fired in anger seem to have that disease ;)  --Jpbrenna 03:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brain fever

message: Did the Alabama African-American community accept Wallace's apology? Youngamerican 20:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second picture at this article on George Wallace gives some good evidence that yes, his apology was accepted. --Dylan Thurston 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redemption

message: While I highly doubt that Neo-Nazi, right-winger racist types who look up George Wallace biographies probably have no idea who I'm talking about (they probably write him off as a "faggy Brit", the pic at the top of the article looks like Morrissey. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) .
You mean the picture of him standing in the doorway?  I don't think you've got to be a right wing nazi to want to read the article, I found the fact that he renounced his previous views and his candid admission that he used racism as a means to election very moving.
The Nazis were socialist and thus left wing. Nearly all segregationists were democrats and also advocated increased welfare and social programmes making them left wing.
NOT SO AT ALL. The Nazis were neither socialist nor left-wing. Not by a long shot. The Nazi party was originally a small working-class party with a vaguely socialist agenda; that's why it was called the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). When Hitler and his cronies took over that party, they didn't bother to change the name, with the result that they have always been known by the name of that party, "nazi" being short for "national socialist" ("nationalsozialistische"). But that's merely a word. There was and is actually nothing socialist about Nazis. Much less is there anything left-wing about them. Hitler actually tried to change the name to Social Revolutionary Party, but his proposal was nixed.
:Oh, absolutely.
:So according to you, desegregation was a Republican idea all along?  It wasn't Truman who desegregated the military, it wasn't Johnson who passed the Civil Rights Act, oh no, none of that ever happened, did it (personal attack removed)?  The GOP dropped racial equality from its platform around 1900 and never got it back.  Desegregation after that was always advanced by Northeastern *LIBERAL* Democrats, who were willing to lose the South and therefore their political supremacy in order to bring about racial equality.  What did Republicans do?  They picked up the racist vote and sold out Lincoln's ideals for a chance at political supremacy.  Give yourselves a hand, boys.
:"Nearly all segregationists were democrats and also advocated increased welfare and social programmes making them left wing."
:The segregationists *were* leftists throughout FDR's administration.  And why shouldn't they be?  The South benefited more than any other region from the New Deal.  But then they found out that their hard-earned tax money was also going to (shudder) black people - can you imagine?  A problem that was compounded when Truman desegregated the military and the party slid slowly more and more towards racial liberalism.  Which was when the Southern Democrats slowly started distancing themselves from liberalism and the New Deal legacy.  
:"The Nazis were socialist and thus left wing."
:Ah yes, the shameless GOP "everybody who disagrees with me is a NAZI! thing.  Here's a question; if the Nazis were socialist, why the hell was private property both respected and encouraged (Mussolini called it "a right and a duty") in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy?  Why were all their economic reforms in favor of the business sector (abolishing unions, requiring workers to get the consent of their previous employer before finding a new job)?
:Oh, another question; where the FUCK was the pro-rugged individual, pro-personal freedom Republican Party at the time when the Nazis actually existed, and actually were a threat to mankind?  Oh, that's right.  Using every ounce of political power they had left to keep the country out of war, lest their sponsors in the business sector be forced to stop trading helium to Germany, or oil to Japan.  Remind me again, who are the "traitors" who would sell America out for a second cup of coffee? 213.181.226.21 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After you spewed all that vitriol, I have to ask: you do know that Wallace, whom this web page concerns, was a Democrat, right? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a Southern Democrat or a Dixiecrat.  He left the Democratic Party over race and civil rights, when he ran as a member of the American Independent Party in 1968.  He briefly sought the Democratic nomination in 1972, but I guess that was because he realized the black people could vote, and he would need their support.  Also, if "Republicans" were so much in favor of civil rights, explain this:  At the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, there were 11 Southern Republicans in Congress:  1 in the Senate, and 10 in the House.  All eleven of them voted against the Civil Rights Act.Alexander Springstea (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Morrissey

message: According to this page, on September 10, 1963 "20 black students entered public schools in Birmingham, Tuskegee and Mobile, Alabama, following a standoff between federal authorities and Gov. George C. Wallace."
There's nothing in the article about this - just the similar standoff in June of that year. It looks like it should be mentioned but I don't know enough about the events to add to the article myself. --Spondoolicks 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: September 1963

message: I have reviewed this article per the criteria in WP:WIAGA and unfortunately had to fail it.  The following issues arose for me vis-a-vis the Good Article criteria:
#It has some organization issues that affect the quality of the article.  The section titled "Presidential Ambitions" for example, seems out of place for the flow of the article.  There are other issues in organization as well that interupt the flow and make it hard to follow in places.  (Early Life section separate from the Wives and Children section?  Maybe a unified personal life section would be better... )Also, some section titles have irregular capitalization.  See WP:MOS for more info.
#The article has some serious referencing issues.  Large sections of text, which make assertions of facts, are unreferenced as to where those facts come from.  For example:
##The entire Entering Politics section
##Most of the American Independent Party presidential candidate section (there's even a FACT tag there!)
##The second half of the Second term as governor section
##The entire Change of views before final term section
##The entire Wives and children section
##Most of Wallace in pop culture section
#Fair use problems with the image "Wallace button.gif", which does not have an adequate Fair Use Rationale.
If these problems can be fixed, feel free to renominate for GA again.  Good luck and happy editing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA and reasons

message: After Wallace was shot, was he completely paralyzed, or paralyzed from the waist down, or what? The article should be more clear on this. --MasterA113 19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paralysis

message: Jere Beasley was never Governor of Alabama (he never held the office). Beasley was Lieutenant Governor serving as Acting Governor during Governor Wallace's absence (due to assassination attempt injuries). Also List of Governors of Alabama listes Wallace as the 45th Governor (the 45th state Governor), the list numbers Governors by individual (only) even though a governor may have served non-consecutive terms. GoodDay 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed infoboxes

message: The List of Governors of Alabama numbers those governor's by individual not by office. Therefore, even though Wallace has served on three separate occasions, he's still only numbered as the 45th Governor. GoodDay 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wallace's gubernatorial number

message: George Wallace presidential campaign, 1968 was made by copying George Wallace#American Independent Party presidential candidate and they are still almost identical. The copy was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wallace presidential campaign 1968, so the section in George Wallace should be a summary per Wikipedia:Summary style. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential campaign in 1968

message: Gov. George Wallace's legacy will be forever tarnished. He along with Bull Connor, are true symbols of bigotry in U.S. History. The actions of racist like this man and others brought about the very change they fought so hard to avoid.
Alvin A. Harris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.153.118 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amen to that.   04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So? 72.145.146.20 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Far too POV to be included in intro. Reverted back to previous. noble savage Talk 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbol of bigotry

message: Anyone attempting to use Lincoln for a contrasting comparison to Wallace on views about race and segregation would be best be advised to look at the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate of 9/18/1858.
“I say then I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.  And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Lincoln may have possibly changed his views somewhat, but nothing I've ever seen has indicated more than ambivalence on his part.  His issue was that slavery was wrong, not discrimination and inequality before the law, as based on race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_debates_of_1858#The_debates  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.3.188 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lincoln comparison

message: I removed this passage:
:A black lawyer recalls, "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom." Later, when a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor."
because the "black lawyer" quote is unsourced, and the "good roads" quote is not found anywhere on the page linked in the citation. TremorMilo (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of unsourced material

message: Was Wallace ever officially in the Dixiecrat Party of Strom Thurmond? From what I know, he was a Southern Democrat, but nothing really beyond that. If that's the case, there's really no point in listing his affiliation as 'Democratic (Dixiecrat)'. One (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Wallace was not a Dixiecrat. In fact, to the contrary, Wallace refused to walk out on the Democrats when Thurmond's delegation left the convention. Any such labellings are probably due to Wallace having similar goals and, indeed, leaving the Democrats later to run as a third-party candidate. Recognizance (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dixiecrat addition

message: Bill Cosby was talking about BLACK COMEDIAN GEORGE WALLACE. Not WHITE FORMER GOVERNER OF ALABAMA GEORGE WALLACE. Sheesh, the internet is dumb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.150.50 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cosby comment

message: This entry currently gives Wallace's religious affiliation (in a box under his photo) as follows: "Religion Born-again Christian (after 1964) / Baptist (before 1964)" 
Biographies I've seen say that Wallace was a Methodist. See, e.g., Jeff Frederick, Stand Up for Alabama:  George Wallace, at pp. 113, 355, 429 n.33 (Tuscaloosa: Univ. Alabama Press,  2007). 
Can anyone clarify what basis there might be for identifying Wallace as a Baptist rather than Methodist?  
Eric Alan Isaacson (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: good point. Carter, Politics of Rage, p 137 quotes Wallace on national TV calling himself a Methodist in 1963.Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious affiliation

message: Fourth paragraph currently reads: "Wallace retracted the invitation, and chose Air Force General Curtis LeMay instead. LeMay was chairman of the board of an electronics company, and the company would dismiss him if he spent his time running for vice president; Hunt set up a million-dollar fund to reimburse him for any losses." (emphasis mine) - who or what is Hunt? This bit is quite confusing without that piece of information, could someone clarify it please?
Ta! Beccaviola (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1968 third party presidential run

message: The lead section reads, He is best known for his Southern populist, pro-segregation attitudes during the American desegregation period, convictions he ostensibly renounced later in life.  Now I'm no George Wallace fan--the man was a complete demagogue, in my opinion.  But this sentence is a bit POV, I believe.  Why?  To renounce something carries with it the connotation of a public declaration. (See Miriam Webster, "1. to give up, refuse, or resign usually by formal declaration" and Dictionary.com, "2.to give up by formal declaration: to renounce a claim.").  As such, the use of the word "ostensibly", which clearly carries the connotation that he did not really do what follows, implies that Wallace was still a segregationist.  Now I personally think that leopards don't change their spots; Wallace either was a racist until the day he died or he was a non-racist in 1960 who just wanted to get elected.  But the point is, it is a fact that he did make formal, public declarations repudiating his earlier stances (and got a lot of black votes by doing so). So the word "ostensibly" has the effect of smearing him as a potential liar, when in fact, we cannot ascertain that without being able to read his mind or heart. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one could say he "publicly renounced" prior views, which leaves what he felt inside out of the equation. We have no way of knowing what his true feelings on race were at that later time, either way. Codenamemary (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Having no way of knowing what his true feelings on race were, we must defer to what the reliable sources say. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I guess someone didn't like "publicly renounced," even though that's at least what we KNOW happened.  It got reverted back. I wonder why someone would possibly object to that? I don't think it's in dispute that he publicly renounced his former stance.Codenamemary (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ostensibly 

message: The language had been changed in something I added to the lede ("....with unforgiven sin" to "...his sins unforgiven"). I just thought it was better to stick with the phrasing that's in the cited source, as the sincerity of Wallace's "change of heart" is such a contested issue. Anyway, I was comparing the edits, and now it looks like the original phrasing is back (good) but what else did I do (bad)? Ugh.  Codenamemary (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I mixed up what the original wording was. The latest edit is still there, so I didn't change anything, big or small. Carry on. Codenamemary (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hope I didn't switch this to earlier version, somehow 

message: The article seems to say that Terry Branstad is the only person who served longer as a governor than Wallace's 16 years.  But that doesn't seem to be true.  George Clinton was governor of New York for 21 years (1777-1795 and 1801-1804).  I'm not sure if there are others, but this ought to be checked out. john k (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record length of service? 

message: There are a number of difficulties with this section.
# The "our troops" suggest that this is possibly a direct citation from somewhere, but it is not clear where.
# The Brown v. Board article given as a reference is incorrectly linked, at least for accessing it today. A correct link would be http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2004/marchapril/feature/brown-v-board
# The article in question does not substantiate the facts stated in any useful way, hence I have not amended the link.
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an expert on Wallace, and I do not feel equipped to correct these issues per sé, but they do need to be addressed to improve the quality of the article.
PaulJCompton (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing in the Schoolhouse Door 

message: Does anybody knows George Wallace was a Republican?
George Wallace was a conservative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.148.136 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political party 

message: The body text says he was born in Clio, but the infobox says Opp. Which is right? Lesgles (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it seems there was some subtle vandalism going on. Fixed, I think. Lesgles (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: I am taking out the sentence saying Wallace ""earned the title 'the most influential loser' in 20th century U.S. politics." It is not something that can be "earned;" it is a cheap shot when referring to someone who won a major office four times; it is merely the opinion of two people; and it does not belong in the lead paragraph. People often use Wikipedia to insult those that cannot defend themselves, as a way to feel good about themselves, but applying 21st century standards to 1960's society is inappropriate.Chagallophile (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "influential loser" No it is not "merely the opinion of two people." It represents analysis by leading scholars based on years of research. Wikipedia reports what the RS discover. The statement is not insulting -- it puts him in the ranks of William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, etc.   Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I tweaked the wording a bit. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it into this: With four unsuccessful runs for President (three as a Democrat and one on the American Independent Party ticket), he was a loser. However his impact on American politics was enormous. he was given the appellation "the most influential loser" in 20th century U.S. politics, according to biographers....  Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: *Sorry , but that phrase, in Wikipedia's voice, is too strong for my taste. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: *I do not think that the Faustian line should be removed if the sourcing is good; the line is clearly given as an opinion, and if that opinion, which is highly relevant, is made by a respectable scholar in a respectable publication, it should stand. But there's the problem. The system of documentation is messed up and unclear. The reference given is Carter 1995, but a. there is no bibliography and b. there is no "Carter 1995" in the notes, not that I can see. There is a Carter 1996, and a few references to it (but it's not cited in the first occurrence, very sloppy), but no 1995. There is a poorly cited Carter 1998, in note 36. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of insult 

message: The sentence, "He is remembered for his Southern populist and segregationist attitudes during the mid-20th century period of the Civil Rights Movement and activism, which gained passage of federal civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s to enforce constitutional rights for all citizens", is potentially misleading. If read quickly, it could give the impression that Wallace's attitudes gained the passage of civil rights legislation. It would even be pushing it to say that the legislation was a reaction to his stand against integration. I am therefore removing the reference to the legislation and replacing it with the things for which he is best remembered: the 1963 inaugural address and the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door.  Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in the lead 

message: I'm a bit confused about a section in this article. In the "Early life" section, it states "...he entered pilot cadet training in the United States Army Air Corps. He failed to complete the course, however, and as a staff sergeant flew B-29 combat missions over Japan in 1945." I am not any expert on things pertaining to this, so I'm curious how Wallace flew combat missions when he did not complete his pilot cadet training? Was the cadet training for something else? Is there another explanation? I'm just writing this so the article can be clarified. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little confusion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on George Wallace. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718093952/http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/52940/b19f19-1026zdisplay.pdf to http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/52940/b19f19-1026zdisplay.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103105339/http://www.blogofdeath.com/archives/001272.html to http://www.blogofdeath.com/archives/001272.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on George Wallace. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423030934/http://www.al.com/specialreport/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?separateagain%2Fsa4.html to http://www.al.com/specialreport/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?separateagain%2Fsa4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928125855/http://www.steveflowers.us/columns/101205.htm to http://www.steveflowers.us/columns/101205.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wallace was more than just a Democrat during his career. While a series of IP editors are edit warring over the first sentence of the article, the second sentence says, "He sought the United States presidency as a Democrat three times, and once as an American Independent Party candidate, unsuccessfully each time."  This seems sufficient to address his two significant party links, especially considering the national significance of his presidential runs.  IPs, make your case here rather than edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Party Affiliation

message: Saw this was in the revisions. the sentence "far-right democrat" is not factual. This is blatant propaganda this "far-right" descriptor needs to be removed. This is a historical revision. Also it advances an inaccurate use of political spectrum. A spectrum, must be a spectrum, "used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points" This means we have defined points. The political spectrum is the space between total freedom and no freedom. Wallace's views would not be towards the right of total freedom. There is no spectrum justification that works to define his believes as being of the "right".05:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Far right is a commonly used term to describe politicians and others who profess views such as ""segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Far right is not the same as a normal conservative, and the democratic party has not always been left wing. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be surprised if Jacksonian democracy is considered left-wing. Dimadick (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2018 

message: In the edit history of the page, some users have edited the infobox section to include incorrect dates of Wallace's last term as governor. The dates of Wallace's last term as governor was from January 17, 1983 until January 19, 1987. Please see the Alabama Department of Archives and History Website. American.history.editor.1 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Term as Governor 

message: Can someone describe what the other colors are on the map of the states? Jokem (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1976 Democratic presidential primaries 

message: When attempting to google his military career, I found this
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/George_Wallace
Practically a word for word copy of the wikipedia article, or maybe the other way around?  Jokem (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military 

message: The description of Wallace's portrait on the infobox dates the image to 1962, on Wikimedia it is undated. However looking at images of Wallace at the time as well as late images of him, it is clear the image was taken at a later date, likely as his gubernatorial portrait in 1971. BoringLifeBoringWife (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait description 

message: I’ve been noticing that there has been much discussion of which portrait should be used for George Wallace. Any chance we can come to some sort of agreement? I personally find the 1983 portrait to be ugly and the 1962 one to be nicer but that’s just me. (eye)rizz (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: they deleted the original Option B Image which was higher quality and not the one mentioned at the moment 52Timer (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Option A While this is an older photo, I'd argue that the quality/resolution is slightly better than B.  OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Option A Agreeing that this one appears to be higher quality. There is something about the mouth on the other option that makes it look weird. Joyous! Noise! 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Option A George Wallace was a vile racist not a curly grandpa KlaudeMan (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Wallace image dispute 

message: File:George_Wallace_(D-AL)_(cropped).jpg|Option A: Wallace's official portrait, 1962
File:George_Wallace_official_portrait_1983.jpg|Option B: Wallace's last official portrait, 1983
Generally speaking, the most important criteria for a lede/infobox photo is high quality clearly showing the subject's face. For living subjects, it's usually preferable to use the most recent high-quality photo. For deceased subjects, there is a broader lattitude for that.
: Option A While this is an older photo, I'd argue that the quality/resolution is slightly better than B.  OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Option A Agreeing that this one appears to be higher quality. There is something about the mouth on the other option that makes it look weird. Joyous! Noise! 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Option A George Wallace was a vile racist not a curly grandpa KlaudeMan (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede image poll