Talk:Allen West (politician)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Notability and Why West would be in WP at all.

Lieut. Col. West's notability is based on the controversy caused by his torture of the Iraqi police officer that almost resulted in his court-martial.

His military career was ended by this incident, and he plea bargained down the charges from a court-martial to a lesser charge by accepting retirement and a fine. This is the basis for his notability and it must not be omitted from the overview of his career as it is the entire reason for his entry in the Wikipedia at all. Other than that, he was just a minor Congressman. Without his notability for this torture incident, no one would much care about whether he was elected or not. Indeed he would certainly not be hired by Fox news had he just retired without incident. Jjk (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with him passing WP:POLITICIAN but the reason he is notable, far and away more so than being a congressman is his conviction and forced retirement for torture. ( In his defense, were I in his position I might have done the same thing.) Further he would not have been hired by Fox News without that event to build/promote his reputation. The fact that he is a really minor politician in no way overshadows his notoriety from being forced out of the military. In fact his career as a politician was made possible by that very notoriety.  :-) Jjk (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter what we think is the biggest reason. If he passes the notability guideline (and you agree he does), then he gets included. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Um.. OK.... who said he shouldn't be included? Jjk (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Um, look at the title of the section you created. If you're not questioning his notability, then you worded that pretty poorly. How about if you simply state, in a nice clear manner, what your point is? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

See WP:PRIMARY: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Information from primary sources, especially quotes, should be used with care. There are plenty of secondary sources with plenty of quotes from West on this incident that have been vetted for notability, significance, and accuracy. We should use those instead. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Ok, you have got to make up your mind. Is the fact that it is a primary source your final answer? This use is not a problem. Primary sources are allowed, with caution. The use of one to support a single sentence is fairly cautious. In this case, a neutral third party (investigators) recorded West's claim. This isn't a matter of using West as a source directly, this is West's words as recorded by a third party. This entry makes it very clear that it was West making a claim and takes no position on the validity of it. So how is it being misused? Your whole "vetting" thing is where you go off on a tangent. When I restored it, you removed it and claimed "reliability isn't an issue", yet here you are saying "notability, significance, and accuracy" are part of your objection. So which is it? Is reliability an issue or not? I submit that the US Army investigation is a reliable source and being accurately referenced. A fact really needn't be notable to be included, more relevant and significant. To that end, the subjects own words about how he viewed the results of his actions appear significant to me. Lastly, if you are aware of these other sources, why not simply sub them into the article, instead of removing the information that you concede exists? That simply doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Primary sources are allowed, but allowed doesn't mean appropriate in every instance, and my opinion is that it is inappropriate for ALL of my stated reasons. In this case, when there are an abundance of secondary sources amply documenting West's point of view, there is no need to do WP:OR and pick out quotes from primary documents. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Love the ALL, while ignoring that you earlier told me that reliability wasn't one of the reasons. Picking out what he said isn't OR. Picking a quote and interpreting it would be OR. Merely repeating it isn't OR. Meanwhile, you continued to ignore the fact that you keep talking about the abundant sources, yet refuse to just fix it instead of just deleting it. Why wouldn't you simply put in one of those abundant sources instead of trying to play the 3RR game? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The report is reliable. Is West's statement reliable? That's the distinction you are ignoring while you gloat over thinking you've caught me in some kind of logical trap. Were West's statement vetted by a reliable source, we would know if there was a dispute regarding its accuracy. Merely plucking it out of a primary source does not provide that context. The article and the sources used in the article quote many of West's statements in his own defense. I think the article is perfectly adequate without this particular one. If you disagree, you are welcome to "just fix it" yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if West's statement is accurate. The neutral party reports that he made the claim. It doesn't matter if it's accurate. We are accurately reporting that he made the claim. Your obsession with "vetting" is off base. The claim doesn't have to be true or accurate. What has to be true or accurate is reporting that he made the claim. I don't see anything that needs fix, so telling me to fix it is ridiculous. You claim that many sources are available, yet refuse to take on the simple task of using one of them....and hope that you can flip this around on me? Get serious. Then you try gaming your way through a 3RR complaint. Your refusal to replace this with one of these abundant sources could lead one to question whether your interest is in improving the article or just trying to keep the statement out. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not gaming anything, you broke the rule, you refused to correct it, period. As the editor who wants to include this material in the article, the onus is on you to make your case for inclusion, not on me to "fix" something that to me appears perfectly acceptable without this material. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt at all that when you made that last revert, you were already counting, hoping I'd missed the ones from yesterday. The edit of different material that made it under the 24 hours by about 30 minutes. You can deny it, but I'll never believe you were trying to game it.. There is nothing here to fix. This primary source is not being misused or misrepresented. There is no OR going on and there is no requirement to prove West's claim was correct. The only thing that needs proven is that he made it. He did and the source proves that. And while you cry "you broke the rules".....so did you when you failed to notify me. That notification isn't optional, a suggestion or "protocol". It's a requirement. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to debate this with you. You broke the rule, you refused to correct it, period. Everything else is irrelevant. Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe you missed where I said "You were correct that I had overlooked my removal of a separate issue in that article". I conceded that I had accidentally exceeded the 3RR a while ago. Try paying attention However, this discussion isn't about the 3RR. It's about the article. Saying that everything else besides the 3rr is irrelevant is just flat out wrong. Or have you just lost track of what you're arguing about?Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to start discussing the article at any time. It would be a welcome break from your torrent of personal accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, you poor victim. You failed to actually address my last response about the issue, instead focusing solely on why you don't need to actually improve anything and whining about "you broke the rule". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Niteshift, is your only protest really that you want to use a primary source? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm saying the primary source is permissable in this instance and that if Gamaliel prefers another source, then he should provide it. He's already stated there are abundant sources, so why not simply use one if he has such an issue with it. I can't see a valid reason to remove this one, so telling me that it's my responsibility doesn't seem right. It's in the article, using a reliable source and the source is being used in an accurate manner and in a manner that is permissable under WP:PRIMARY. So any further onus is not on me, rather on him. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The onus is always on the person wishing to include material. Is it permissible per policy? Sure, we already agree on that. But is it appropriate and desirable? That's the discussion that we should be having. You have yet to make a case for the need for this particular statement when there is an abundance of preferable secondary sources and an abundance of West quotes in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It already is included and, if I'm not mistaken, has been for some time. I've stated why I believe it is appropriate. I have no objection to trying to find another source, but since I don't have an objection to this one, I see no reason I should go look for one either. You've shown little reason to ignore the current source except that you think there are better ones. That doesn't warrant removal of the current one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand you have stated your opinion why a primary source may be appropriate per policy. Could you state (or restate if I missed it) your opinion on why this particular source and quote are appropriate and necessary? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Gamaliel, is your opposition to adding it solely because there's already a lot of information on the matter, or is it something else? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's unnecessary given the abundance of information in the article and I feel that primary sources in general should be used very sparingly, if at all, and only when there is a compelling reason to do so or when there is no other available source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Niteshift, I was looking for alternate sources for that, and it doesn't seem to be a significant point in West's biography. Is there a reason we need it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In the end, West makes this claim as some sort of justification for his actions. I think it's important to included it because it shows his attitude toward the incident and how it still appears completely justified to him. We're not making a determination of the validity of the statement, just documenting that it was made as a defense/justification on his part.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'm seeing the importance of it, honestly. I'm looking, and we're giving his side of the story pretty direct quoting, and this is almost parenthetical in nature. That there was an ambush after he was relieved of duty by no means indicates anything about West or those who removed him. I'm a little confused about its usefulness at the moment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It indicates that West made the statement as "evidence" that his actions, which he was disciplined for, were correct. Let me ask you, what harm does the inclusion hold? All this battle is over a single sentence that even the editor who removed it conceeds comes from a reliable source. There really isn't anything contentious about the claim. The issue here seems to be that some don't see the usefulness.......and somehow this single sentence has become a big deal that needs removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, it's clearly a little controversial, and it is primary sourced, which is a little dangerous in a BLP. I guess I'm looking for something that indicates that it's worth having in the article at all, never mind getting into an edit war over. I'm sure West presented a number of reasons why he acted as he did, I'm just not seeing why "I must have done something right, because there wasn't an ambush until I left" is sound. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I view contentious and controversial a bit different. "Controversy" in this case is because an editor decided he needed to remove something he doesn't even dispute the veracity of. I've never disputed that this is a primary source and stated that it is a primary source, so I don't know why people keep needing to tell me it's a primary source. Even Gamaliel agrees that using it is permissible. Maybe West did present a number of reasons. Maybe he didn't. If you have a source that shows he did, by all means, present it. But we DO know he presented THIS reason. Why would we exclude it? It isn't being present out of context, pushing a POV or anything like that. However, finding this with another source wasn't hard at all. the CNN source already used in this article [1] says "West said there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post on October 4.". So there is a reliable, third party, reporting it. Of course I can't insert it myself since I agreed not to edit the article for 5 days. But this source would seem to meet all the "vetting" issues that Gamaliel has expressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Since a reliable secondary source has reported on West's claim, I no longer have any objection to this material being in the article. I will edit the article accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Glad this worked out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your adult supervision. I admire editors who are willing to get down into the trenches and solve problems like this. Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Interesting how the source was already used in that paragraph. As it turns out, the end result was the same information and one less source. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not particularly. Sometimes the nuts and bolts of editing can be quite dull. Gamaliel (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Guess the comment went over your head. Disregard. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, I know exactly what you meant, sorry to frustrate you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If you did understand, your answer makes no sense. It's ok that you don't get it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry it's not the response you desired. Life is full of disappointment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Since my comment was on a resolved matter and asked no question, I didn't expect a response at all. I failed to take into account your need to have the last word. My error. So I'll let you have that now. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is the thumb-sucking idiot that wrote this drivel? Quoting "Mother Jones," a known piece of leftist refuse, in an article about a conservative political personality is neither fair nor enlightening. If you cannot quote from professional historical sources or known authorities, do no quote. You only revel your own half-assed left-wing agenda by doing so.

"He is not considered a War Criminal."

This sentence caught my eye in the interrogation section. It's not explained why West is not considered a war criminal, so I'm curious according to what criteria/by whom he isn't considered a war criminal and why the odd capitalisation? Is there some sort of official definition? If so, it would be good if it was clarified somehow, eg "According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice [...]". kissekatt (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • He's not a war criminal because he was never charged with a war crime, let alone convicted of one. It simply shouldn't be there and has been removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

2012 Election

The opening paragraph says that a recount increased Murphy's lead and (so) the original total was certified. (Which does not make sense.)

Later we read that the recount *decreased* Murphy's lead but the recount was not completed within the allotted time so the original count was certified. (Which makes more sense.)

So...was the recount showing a greater or lesser lead when it was halted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1302:6073:D422:E6FE:B53:85B3 (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole article

This whole article reads like a sanitized fluff piece...FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the Army's Report on the Criminal Investigation of the Interrogation Incident

I originally inserted the reference to the report way back in September of 2010. I'm curious as to why the article's editors saw the need to remove it. It is, in my opinion, the urtext of nearly all that has been written of this incident, from 2004 onward. I noticed an objection by 64.85.214.232 in 2011 to the report being hosted on an ACLU server. Clearly, 64.85.214.232 based his or her judgement as to the quality, neutrality, and relevance of the report entirely on its URL. If he or she had bothered to click the link, he or she would have realized that the report was written by the Army, not the ACLU. Unfortunately, at the time I cited the report, I had difficulty finding a link to it anywhere else on the web. I highly doubt that the ACLU would have altered the report in any way.

Regardless of one's opinion of Allen West, an objective chronicle of West's life would necessarily include a comprehensive treatment of the interrogation incident. It was a defining episode of West's life. It represented not just the capstone to a long military career, but arguably the impetus for West's elevation to conservative hero and for his current role as politician and pundit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlasfugged (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Article is inconsistent

The body of the article indicates West joined the Army in 1983, but in the Biography section under his headshot it says he was in the Army 1984-2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.154.177 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Allen West (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Allen West (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Gold Wings

I see [West] wearing Navy/Marines, gold wings. I just want to know why? I was told, and informed, that is for Navy/Marines only. I note, [West is] Army only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:402:C930:C9B9:4729:16AA:AD7F (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC) ........ Question rewritten. (A look in the history will show the reason.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit needed

I am LTC West's social media director. The website listed is incorrect. AllenWest.com and AllenBWest.com are both under a permanent "under construction" banner due to a public, documented, and verifiable fallout with previous team due to a number of unauthorized moves. I am just trying to correct the information and apologize if I didn't understand the protocol. I'm not trying to self-promote or become a wikipedia editor, I just want the correct info listed. The correct site is https://theoldschoolpatriot.com. Proof of my claim: [1] MarieMedia (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the link to his (former?) website pending some resolution to this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, [User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem], however I would like to know how to have his official site listed, as other notable people do? His verified Facebook page, and verified Twitter pages list the site as https://theoldschoolpatriot.com. Again, not trying to self-promote, but trying to bring his profile in line with other notables who have their official websites listed. Thank you! MarieMedia (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit Needed

Per the thread above, LTC West has an official website. Above I provided one citation and that resulted in the old site being removed, and I do not see my amended note with the new site citation listed. It flashes on the screen in this televised interview with Mark Levin on Fox News. Can it please be added? Thank you! MarieMarieMedia (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Official Site

LTC West's official site is: https://theoldschoolpatriot.com MarieMedia (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Recommend changing "Iraq Interrogation Incident" to "Iraq Torture Incident"

Given that Lt. West beat Officer Hamoodi and subsequently conducted a mock execution, it seems safe to characterize his treatment of the prisoner as torture. Any objections? Tethros (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

New Book by Allen West to Add

LTC West released a new book, Hold Texas, Hold the Nation: Victory or Death, on October 16, 2018, as verified by his Amazon author page Allen West (Author) on Amazon MarieMedia (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Campaign Website

On August 15, 2019, Allen B. West announced a bid for Chair of the Republican Party of Texas. The campaign website is https://west4texas.com (source: [2] and many other media sources quoted here: [3]) MarieMedia (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Political Positions?

As richly developed as this article is, how does it not yet have a "Political Positions" section, as most mature articles on politicians do? There seems to be hints of his positions already in other sections of the article as it stands, but these should be consolidated and expanded upon in a dedicated section. Tmusgrove (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The subject has only actually held an elected office for 2 years out of his 13-year political career. Feel free to create such a section of you like, just not sure it will have much meat to it. Zaathras (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

West taking Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

A random IP editor is insistent on downplaying ( [2] and other reverts) the fact that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine treatments for Covid are not prescribed medications. Zaathras (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, to say that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are not prescribed medications is patently false as prescribed medications are given out at the discretion of the prescribing doctor. Secondly, I'm not "downplaying" anything, I'm merely stating that the phrase "neither of which are approved treatments for the disease" is irrelevant as that section of the article is being used to state that West had Covid-19, not whether or not his treatment is approved/who it is or isn't approved by. Ps Zaathras, your bias is showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C760:1C50:C953:8527:8317:3993 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Every aspect of that comment is a demonstrable falsehood. Congrats. Zaathras (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally, all it needed was a proper source but somehow it took 4 people to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihj2021 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have made a request for temporary page protection, may consider a sock investigation. Hutch.20, 1 edit ever, to this article. Ihj2021, 2 edits. 2600:1700:C760:1C50:C953:8527:8317:3993, 8 of 9 to this article. Likely the same person, or off-site collaboration. Zaathras (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected Vandalism

Please remove 'West was first married to Gayle Mosby. Later, ' from the "Personal Life" section, as no sources to cite exist.

The first line of Personal Life asserts that Allen West is either divorced or has two wives. Neither of these has any support online. If "Gayle Mosby" is a real person who was or is married to Allen West, a citation is needed. All other sources that I found about about "Gayle Mosby" and Allen West appear are circular; they use this Wikipedia article as their own source. "West was first married to Gayle Mosby" is potentially an untrue and libelous statement about a living person, so if it isn't cited quickly it should be removed as vandalism.49.228.244.73 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless said alleged 1st wife is a serial killer, no, it isn't libelous, it just may be potentially incorrect. Chill. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know where serial killers enter the equation. If the article states something that is incorrect, then the intention or effect may determine whether or not it is libelous. Libel is any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession. To falsely allege multiple marriages may be injurious to a political figure's business or profession. Moreover, if the statement is potentially incorrect, it should have a citation or be removed. It's reasonable to point this out; a locked article's editor would normally want to change or challenge identified vandalism, whether libelous or not. 49.228.244.73 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.mrctv.org/blog/allen-west-fights-his-facebook
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Ag5v0oCKA
  3. ^ https://west4texas.com/news/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allen_West_(politician)/Archive_4&oldid=1087725244"