Talk:George Allen (American politician)/Archive 3

message: Something should be added about Allen's support for James Dobson's claim that we are at war with American Muslims, an allegation Dobson made at the 2006 Values Voters Summit, where both were in attendance. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/24/110949.shtml?s=ic (Anon) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2006.
:I don't think we can infer that at all from the link you've given us. First and foremost, the claim that Dobson is against American muslims is entirely unsupported. Also, we only have that Allen was attendance, not that he supported that specific statement.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Islam 

message: Here is an article from the Washington Post stating that many people knew that Allen's mother was jewish (or figured it out).    Anybody have any feelings on incorporating this information into the article? Remember 15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times has an article up giving the name of another person who said Allen used the n word here: . Any opinions on incorporating this? Remember 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both should be included. Arbusto 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  And another separate allegation .  I have no idea how credible any of these are.Remember 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, here is one last link   it is a nice article that gives a good timeline of the whole controversy.  I think it could be usefule to anyone that wants to fleshout the timing of the whole incidence. Remember 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More random information 

message: George Allen just recently attended a confederence held by the Family Research Council that degraded into preachers screaming "Faggots!" "Gays are from pits of hell!" "The Anti-Christ will be a homosexual!" 
===Removal of section===
Family Research Council Summit
Well, let's start the discussion.  One argument is that this section is not appropriate because there's no evidence Allen did anything other than attend an event at which someone else made inflammatory remarks and the event hasn't received a large amount of media attention (at least at this point).  On the other hand, it is referenced.  Any thoughts? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While thinkprogress.org is indeed notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, that doesn't mean that their criticism is notable enough to say "has been criticized, along with other Republican politicians..." when it looks like just them so far (and similar groups).  Let's see if it gets serious media attention.  Ufwuct 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize to everyone because I just removed the section without a comment on the talk page. I just dont feel it is notable enough. I follow a few races very closely and the thinkprogress is the first actual citable article that I have seen on this particular controversy. I dont think it is enough to critize, the criticism has to be a bit more common than one or two minority viewpoint sources. If more fuentes start to report  on this then I think it should be included. Jasper23 03:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jasper23's removing this section from the article. This controversy isn't unique to Senator Allen; it implicates the conservative movement as a whole, yes, but not Allen to any greater degree than other conservative senators. If there were a stronger connection between Allen and this conference -- say, if he had planned the agenda -- I'd say mention that. But this is penny-ante stuff, commpared to the other controversies mentioned here. --GGreeneVa 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, without any major sources it warrants exclusion. However, if more sources are provided it can be added. Arbusto 03:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual Bashing Conference Attended by Allen, others 

message: Family Research Council Summit
Well, let's start the discussion.  One argument is that this section is not appropriate because there's no evidence Allen did anything other than attend an event at which someone else made inflammatory remarks and the event hasn't received a large amount of media attention (at least at this point).  On the other hand, it is referenced.  Any thoughts? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While thinkprogress.org is indeed notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, that doesn't mean that their criticism is notable enough to say "has been criticized, along with other Republican politicians..." when it looks like just them so far (and similar groups).  Let's see if it gets serious media attention.  Ufwuct 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize to everyone because I just removed the section without a comment on the talk page. I just dont feel it is notable enough. I follow a few races very closely and the thinkprogress is the first actual citable article that I have seen on this particular controversy. I dont think it is enough to critize, the criticism has to be a bit more common than one or two minority viewpoint sources. If more fuentes start to report  on this then I think it should be included. Jasper23 03:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jasper23's removing this section from the article. This controversy isn't unique to Senator Allen; it implicates the conservative movement as a whole, yes, but not Allen to any greater degree than other conservative senators. If there were a stronger connection between Allen and this conference -- say, if he had planned the agenda -- I'd say mention that. But this is penny-ante stuff, commpared to the other controversies mentioned here. --GGreeneVa 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, without any major sources it warrants exclusion. However, if more sources are provided it can be added. Arbusto 03:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section

message: Simply put, the section about Allen's racism is a complete mess.  No matter what you think about the controversy, the article is rambling, poorly edited, and just way way too long.  I propose that this, and all other ongoing controversies should be presented as short summaries, not include every little detail and he said she said.  Wikipedia is NOT the place to argue an ongoing controversy in great detail via documentation.  A fuller, more complete account of the event can be written AFTER all the dust has settled and its clear what the implications of the controversy are and what the major takeaway points are.  
So I propose that it simply say "George Allen has recently faced a number of accusations that he used the n word in a derogatory fashion.  He has labeled these charges false and presented character witnesses who attest that he would not use such language  The controversy is ongoing."  Not those exact words, but basically that and not much longer.  And that's it.   If he resigns, or more details emerge that change the story radically, we can add those, but accounting each and every one of the accusations and counter-accusations as they happen is just a recipe for a terribly written article.  Someone can do that later on, when it is more clear which things were important and which weren't.Plunge 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article read like a hitpiece for the Webb campaign. If Webb smear merchants have taken to wikipedia, then they really must be desperate. It was quite amusing to read the allegations without any of the rebuttals that were easily found. I added AND CITED the rebuttals to the garbage spewed forth against Senator Allen. It's pretty sad that Webbers are so desperate that they need to engage in character assasination. Ghostmonkey57 22:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see Capitol Hill Blue cited as a source for some of this negative info. I always thought that CHB was a prank site, considering some of the claims they made about Bush last year that never panned out (that he had gone crazy, his wife left him, etc.) I certainly don't think that it is reliable enough to source negative info in a BLP. There's a reason why CHB's wikilink is red. I'm teetering on the edge of removing it, and the statement it sources. Crockspot 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and removed the CHB-supported statement. And lest anyone doubt my assessment of their reliability, here are a couple of examples: A purged story, with an apology that enlightens us as to their "journalistic standards" (was a story about Bush gone mad), a piece on Bush's "current" liquor and drug use. Crockspot 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, wrong decision.  The accusation was made in CHB, but it was made by a specific person who has stood by their story. The reliability of the paper's journalism hence doesn't come into it.  The claim is being made by a particular person, just like all the others.  Plunge 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I got better things to do that edit war, but  just reverted some clean up. Someone needs to present both sides in the first paragraph to the section, wikify the claims, and properly cite it. No suprise that the user defending Allen's claims has been editting at confederate soldier articles. Arbusto 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That kind of comment is uncalled for. Why don't you just call him a cracker? Crockspot 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm really getting sick of seening people messing with these articles. The section reads horrible. There are two one sentence paragraphs in that section as the opening. Arbusto 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oh please, I could careless about Allen's campaign. There was a claim that 19 teammates "denied" the allegations. According to the sources, 7 teammates said that hadn't heard Allen use the word. Hence, the story wasn't "denied" nor was the number right. "Dubious left leaning sources"... just make sure to go and remove all the "dubious rightwing sources" that praise conservatives as well. Arbusto 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  This tends to happen when politically motivated editors become overzealous. Dubc0724 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can likely trim down the mother's ancestry one significantly too. It's turned out to be a non-issue, I think.--Rosicrucian 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Heck, his mother's ancestry has turned out to be less of a controversy and more of a curiosity. We could easily move the newly-trimmed section as a subsection of "Family and History."--Rosicrucian 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. While all of this should probably be cut-down after awhile, I think it is too soon to cut it down.  Maybe after awhile we should just move the bulk of it to the election page so that people can know the full events of these controversies with regards to the election. Remember 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree: this gets things EXACTLY backwards.  Wikipedia is ostensibly aiming at more of an objective historical perspective on things than as a webblog of ongoing events.  Controversies should be noted, but its simply impossible to write a good, well balanced, objective article in real time as the controversy is still ongoing.  Most importantly, it it simply isn't clear what elements are important and what aren't: so we just end up with everything but the kitchen sink.  A detailed account of the controversy and it's impact on Allen's life should come LATER after the dust has settled, not immediately as it is ongoing.  Plunge 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing controversies should not be presented in such detail 

message: Here is the original source from Salon...
http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football/
The statement, as worded, in the current article is false. Please fix or remove. Thanks Jasper23 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several other articles (Bob Lewis, Michael Sluss) that also mention names of people, and rebut the Salon piece. I don't have time until tonight to read them all and do a count, but let's make sure we take those sources into account as well. Crockspot 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tricky in politics separating spin from reality, but just because the Allen folks say they rebut it does't mean that they actually did.  For instance, none of them offer any direct contradiction to the story: they are all basically character witnesses.  The few points of discrepancy they raise aren't in fact very strong at all: just because there are other stories other people heard about how this or that nickname started or why Allen went to UVA: even if they are the true stories! does not prevent Allen from bragging about it in the way Shelton describes.  Plunge 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 0f 19 teamates 

message: Here is another story accusing Allen of using the n-word by a new individual .  Any thoughts on incorporating this? Remember 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And another accusation, this time with video 

message: I changed "turned on" to criticized for several reasons. One, it is in quotes, without a source being quoted. Two, it seems to be POV. Three, it could be misinterpreted as the Sons of Confederat Veterans giving Allen an erection. Crockspot 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hilarious.  I have no further comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Turned on" was the how it was worded in the article. Arbusto 03:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sons of Confederat Veterans 

message: Lets fix this governer section and put it back in. It is horribly written and unsourced. I have bolded some of the gems.
As governor, Allen pushed for changes in several areas including the following: http://www.coopercenter.org/publications/sitefiles/vanl/vanl0996.pdf#search=%22george%20allen%20governor%20welfare%20parole%20%22:
	Criminal Justice Reform: Major changes included abolishment of parole, juvenile justice reform, and sentencing increases.
	Welfare Reform: Major changes included a two year limit on assistance, a work requirement, and new child support measures.
	Education Reform: During Allen's governorship, the state established academic standards that applied statewide.  The standards were put in place for math, science, English, and history.  Additionally, a system was put in place to measure the student achievement.  
Lets work on making the page better instead of arquing over every little thing.
Jasper23 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is it that you have a problem with?  Grammar? -- I suggest making the changes yourself without removing the section.  POV wording?  --  Perhaps you could suggest better wording without removing the section.  Undue weight?  -- Maybe we could trim it a bit after discussion, but we shouldn't remove the section.  These are the kinds of things that are supposed to be in articles about U.S. Senators/Governors/etc., i.e. accomplishments while in office.  Remember, this article is not just a collection of information on scandals and controversies. Ufwuct 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is sourced to a former staff member of one of his campaigns. If you want to rewrite the whole section and resource it that would be great. If not it comes out until someone does. Thanks Jasper23 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Template 

message: mentions that ex-team mate congratulated Allen when Allen was elected to Senate in 2006.
That should read 2000 , not 2006Ovrd 01:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen elected in 2000 

message: Two paragraphs about the "macaca incident" were removed from the Dutch article on George Allen, by an anonymous user with an IP from Virginia  I doubt that person speaks Dutch, so it probably wasn't the writing style they disagreed with. Just making a note here, in case it comes to light that political staffers are manipulating articles, like it has in the past. --Oogje 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch Wikipedia 

message: Just ran across this story in the news.  It appears Senator Allen was accepting stock options without disclosing them to congress and may have been involved in legislation which benefited a company which gave him options.  I won't be in a position to do any writing on this until tomorrow, but it may be worth digging out a few more sources if they are out there so it can be written up properly.  As this involves actions while in Congress rather than election issues it probably belongs in this article rather than the election article. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding basic info.   John Broughton  |  Talk 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisclosed stock options 

message: First reported on Daily Kos (www.dailykos.com), an arrest warrent for a George Felix Allen was issued in 1974 in relation to a criminal hearing on February 15th, 1973. There wasn't any more info on this, so I didn't post this on the main page).  Shriek 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonkette has posted images purporting to show Virginia warrent records showing the name Allen, George Felix .  Time to put it on the main page??? 66.168.28.42 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the libel. Remember 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest Warrant  

message: No more citation needed tags. Nice work to all. Maybe the macaca stuff (although obvious) should be sourced as well? --198.185.18.207 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article tag on the macaca stuff links to a section of an article with more than adequate sourcing of the whole incident. Thus, likely no need to source that small section.--Rosicrucian 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  w00t? 

message: Is there some point to the second image in the article?  Allen looks pretty much the same there as he does in the top photo.  Is this really adding value to the article.  John Broughton  |  Talk 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I like it to break up the text. Makes it more appealing to the eye, plus it isn't hurting anybody.  It would be better if there was a more candid shot, maybe speaking at a rally or in a debate, that was PD or equivalent. --198.185.18.207 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that means no, it's not adding any substance to the article.  Written information that is clearly redundant is routinely removed from articles; the same should go for images.  It might make it more appealing to the eye to apply a polka-dot background and it wouldn't hurt anybody either, but there are standards.Emcee 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind having a second photograph, but it should be him campaigning or something. --Db099221 01:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second photograph?

message: The Washington Post has a profile piece on Allen .  It has some interesting stuff on the racial issues if anyone wants to look at it. Remember 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, nothing new by a paper that has already endorsed Allen's opponent. Could be they keep hammering hoping maybe they'll find a nail. --198.185.18.207 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article 

message: This article seems to be getting a significant number of hits by anon IP addresses doing edits that are being reverted by those who have regularly helped edit this article.  Because of that, and because I think it's likely that vandalism will increase in the next eleven days, to the election, I have requested semi-protection here.  John Broughton  |  Talk 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, poo. --198.185.18.207 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP address, 198.185.18.207, is registered to LexisNexis and may be shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.  (from User Talk:198.185.18.207).   John Broughton  |  Talk 00:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-page protection has been requested

message: This pseudo-article is one of the most hilarious that I have seen. All one has to do is to compare it to the pseudo-article about Allen's campaign rival James Webb, to quickly realize that there is not one iota of fairness or balance. These two pseudo-articles are so partisan - and it is quite clear that the prevailing "editors" want Webb to win and Allen to lose.  This is why wikipedia is the joke that it is.  Alas, you are fooling only yourselves and perhaps some dimwits and fools. How sad that you have such shallow goals.  I would not even begin to try to edit the two articles for balance - all that will happen is that those who have dominated the articles to make sure they are partisanly stacked against Allen will continue to keep out all attempts at balance.   What is quite lovely, though, is the realization that Allen is going to win despite the despciable democrat attempts to smear him.  Enjoy! 84.146.205.206
:Bummer when the facts make your baby look bad, isn't it? There are plenty of conservative editors in Wikipedia. They're quite capable of maintaining balance on controversial subjects…butt sometimes bias is in the eye of the beholder, eh?--RattBoy 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And even better than that, in a little more than two years we will call Allen President-elect.--Bedford 11:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can call him that right now, if you wish. If you do so, you'll be as right now as you'll be in Nov. 2008; remember, the US ain't the Cradle of the Confederacy.--RattBoy 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke of the year 

message: I'm reverting Hardcoredemocrat's edits on Plan B as an abortifacient and Allen's view on abortion before viability for the following reasons. If you disagree, please discuss here.
#Plan B should not be characterized as an abortifacient on this page. The morning after pill link, to Emergency contraception, discusses the controversy over its characterization as such. Hardcoredemocrat's edit summary (read this from the "emergency contraception" page: "the emergency contraceptive pill is a drug that acts to prevent the subsequent implantation of a blastocyst (embryo)". (acts as an abortifacient)") was a misleading excerpt from the page; the page actually reads: Emergency contraceptive pill —referred to simply as "emergency contraception," "ECPs," or "ECs", or "morning-after pill" —are drugs that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilisation, or possibly, post-fertilisation, subsequent implantation of a blastocyst (embryo).  Contrary to Hardcoredemocrat's later edit summary, the emergency contraception page does discuss the controversy: here. Note that Plan B is a progesterone-only compound, which according to the EC page "will have no effect if taken after implantation", but rather prevents ovulation. In any case and as I have said before, this is not the appropriate page to discuss this controversy, we should just provide the appropriate links for readers to learn more about it.
#Hardcoredemocrat's other edit (RNCLife didn't use VoteSmart to find out Allen's abortion position.. as an official legal organization, they found out on their own) is also problematic.  Republican National Coalition for Life is "an official legal organization" inasmuch as any organization can be a legal, official organization, including Republicans for Choice or Log Cabin Republicans or Republicans for Kerry.  Further, the RNClife page cited explicitly says that its information is derived from Project Vote Smart:
In 2000, Senator Allen responded to a Project Vote Smart questionnaire, saying abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support. In other words, he supported abortion until viability, when 98% of the abortions are performed. He said abortions should be legal when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, when the life of the woman is endangered, and he added that abortion should be legal for gross fetal abnormality. Of course, he supported the usual restrictions such as a partial-birth abortion ban, waiting periods, and opposed public funding of abortions. But the views he expressed can only be described as pro-choice, not pro-life.
::There are two problems with this: first, RNCLife's interpretation of the questionnaire isn't valid.  According to RNCLife, Allen indicated that abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable.  RNCLife interpreted this as meaning that he supported abortion until viability, which is clearly an invalid logical conclusion, as Allen in fact (as far as we know, and as far as RNCLife tells us) was silent on his view of abortion before viability. I believe this casts doubt on the reliability of RNCLife as a source. Second, RNCLife is citing an outdated questionnaire.  There is a more current, 2006 Vote Smart survey, which is a nonpartisan and, as far as I can tell, NPOV source. RNCLife clearly has a partisan interest in this issue. Note these mainstream news sources that characterize Allen as pro-life/anti-abortion: Washington Post and the News Virginian; the Examiner points out that Allen received a 0% rating from NARAL and a 100% rating from National Right to Life. I haven't seen any source other than that RNCLife page describe Allen as supportive of abortion before viability. Schi 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barr Labs controversy

message: Schi, I want to know why you have reverted my edit.  It was sourced, is factual, and is not POV.  If it is not POV to report that he has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the 2008 elections, then it is also not POV to note that the possiblility for his becoming a candidate is far more unlikely today than it was a year ago.
Until we can agree whether or not it is POV to note that it is unlikely that he will become the Republican candidate I am removing the mention from the introductory paragraph.
--lk 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry!  My bad, I for some reason didn't see your source.  I'll revert back to your edit. Schi 18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed 2008 candidacy from introductory praragraph until agreement about what is or is not POV

message: Mehes tagged this article with the POV check template.  Any explanation for it?  Otherwise I will remove the template. Schi 07:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POVcheck

message: There is another significant Allen controversy that is not covered in his bio. George Allen had kept a noose in his office for years before going in to politics. When journalists asked him about it, he replied that it was a whip.Later he was forced to admit it was a noose. 
This was a big early controversy and relevant b/c of fututre Allen race-tinged incidents.It should be added to his bio. The noose is easeily documented.
*Please sign and date your comments. Also, it wouldn't hurt to open an account. Otherwise it makes sense for the rest of us to assume that anonymous comments are being planted by partisan sources connected to the Allen or Webb campaign and should not be taken seriously. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the noose controversy 

message: It is well documented that the New Republic is a leftist magazine.  If you contend otherwise, I am more than happy to document.  Many AmGovt textbooks state this very clearly.--Fix Bayonets! 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article is not about the magazine, and the material you propose simply doesn't belong here. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Leftist" is certainly POV. Some on the left even describe TNR as part of the right or neoconservative (see Kos, for example). Martin Peretz, part owner of TNR, is arguably not a liberal at all. I would personally describe the magazine as a whole as center-left, but that's simply my POV. In any event, what is the need to describe TNR's political point of view in the article text? After all, we're not dealing with its political point of view in the text, but rather facts reported in the magazine related to George Allen, which Allen and his campaign have confirmed. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But what is the relevance of pointing out TNR's "inherent bias" when it merely reported facts confirmed by Allen??? · j e r s y k o talk · 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, your source is a book from 1988. Umm, TNR has changed quite a bit since 1988 . . . but again, the question is relevance, not accuracy of the description. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not relevant to this article. There is no consensus to keep it. It is being removed. If you replace it again you will be reported for WP:3RR. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And what is the link to this RfC?  --StuffOfInterest 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I was thinking it was an old format RfC where a separate page is started. --StuffOfInterest 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)
Reverting POV vandalism is not a 3RR violation; I've been doing it all day and will continue as long as individuals are inserting nonsense into this article. I have no interest in politics whatsoever, just trying to maintain our standards. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Republic

message: The intent of my RFC was to seek the opinion of non-concerned neutral parties, not to prompt the present editors (who may have historical pattern of editing on this particular issue) to re-state their opposition. thanks.--Fix Bayonets! 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I count the votes so far as 6.5 to .5, against your proposed change. Some people who might think that ignoring the opinions of so many other editors would be a violation of WP:AGF.  John Broughton  |  Talk 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: extra comments

message: *Comment, though only tangentially related to this Rfc, I wanted to note that I have reported Fix Bayonets!'s behavior in this and other articles here. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General behavior 

message: Even if he wins when the absentees are counted, I think his presidential ambitions just went out the window.  --Amcalabrese 23:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say if it will remain. Best to wait and see if he rules out a presidential run in an actual statement.--Rosicrucian 01:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Compare him to Nixon in 1962.  Plus, people still consider John Edwards for '08 and the whole reason he ran in '04 is because he knew he could not win releection to the Senate.  If McCain somehow wins the nom for the GOP, an Allen for VP pick could help keep Conservatives from ignoring the GOP in '08 like they did in '06.--Bedford 03:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential ambitions 

message: While I am personally overjoyed at the tentative results from Tuesday's election, we must remain objective and report the facts as they are, not as they will be. Allen's term is not up until Jan. 3rd, 2007, when then, and only then will he cease to be the incumbent Senator. Stealthound 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allen is still currently serving as Senator

message: Should we take this off, because Allen conceded? Bearly451 talk 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Election Tag

message: Whether some idiot reporter from Fox News declared Felix to be a 'Jewish' name or not is completely irrelevant and so I've deleted it. Felix is a Latin name from the Roman Empire and is derived from the word meaning, "Happy" or "Prosperous". Quoting some fool from Fox News making a basic error is like quoting a virgin on the topic of sexual intercourse. These sorts of basic mistakes are what make wikipedia laughable.Iamlondon 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peggy Fox is a reporter for a CBS affiliate, WUSA. Some might think it's absurd to assume that anyone whose last name is Fox works for Fox News.  Anyways, she did not assert that Felix was a Jewish name; she was asking Allen if he was Jewish, because his grandfather, whose name was Felix, was reported (in the Forward, I believe) to be Jewish.  I'm not sure what edit resulted in the version that you're referring to, but previous versions said: At a debate on September 18, 2006, WUSA-TV reporter Peggy Fox asked Allen "It has been reported that your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?" This is actually somewhat important, because it indicates how the whole discovery of Allen's Jewish heritage came up in the first place. Schi 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now, see, that is far more illuminating, and clearly crucial - I would recommend putting your quote in before the stating of the date of the public statement Allen made. The sentence that was in there before I removed it simply said that Ms Fox had said that because he had 'jewish middle name, Felix' did that mean he was Jewish, etc etc. This happens a lot - people read something somewhere, decide to put in their version on Wiki and the whole statement looks amateur. Highly recommend inclusion of your quote - well done for finding it!Iamlondon 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinstated it. Schi 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle name being 'Jewish'