Talk:George Allen (American politician)/Archive 1

POV

I will not make additional changes to this article this evening. I do not wish to get involved into an "edit war" with Stirling Newberry. I will simply add the NPOV warning Jersyko, I would argue that just because something is sourced does not mean it should be included. The first charge "idiotic" is from a political opponent. I could just easily submit just about any comment from Ann Coulter about democrats into an article on this site and that would be equally wrong. That is her opinion. I argue "Other criticisms" do not belong in an encyclopedia. They are not fact just opinion. Stirling Newberry, a self described Democrat keeps adding them to the article. I believe this is vandalism and will warn. I am refraining from making any more changes for the time being so that I do not violate Wikipedia policy. I have already gone over the 3RR limit. Nnoppinger 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Any relevant, properly cited opinion from a notable person is fully acceptable under Wikipedia policy. And yes, that includes Ann Coulter's opinion. If you believe otherwise, please cite a policy to support your opinion. -- noosphere 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone watch thier pov when editing this article. Some of the controversies listed, particularly "Other criticisms," does not belong in an encyclopedia and I am removing it. They are personal opinions and not facts. I am leaving the other controversies for now, but I am suggesting that at the very least the people that they are cleaned up. George Allen is a public figure and some of these maybe newsworthy and should be included if and only if the adherte to NPOV. Nnoppinger 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right about the Al Gore criticism, anyway, it seems like a minor criticism at best. The other criticism in the "other criticisms" section, however, is sourced to the Washingtonian (magazine). I'm not sold on its inclusion, but it seems that it would be at least somewhat more approrpriate for an encyclopedia article because it does have such a source. In any event, I'm ok with the removal of that section. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This page clearly contains non-neutral statements. It appears to be watched and changed for partisan political reasons by Allen critics. Obviously, any changes will just be changed back by those critics in an effort to make Allen look bad, so the page should, at a minimum, contain a neutrality disputed tag. 13:13, 2 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidIM (talk • contribs)

Can you point to specific instances of POV in the article that violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy? I would like to work to remove the POV if you can. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, most glaringly, is the violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The controversy section is very long compared to articles of some other politicians and compared to the substance of the rest of this article. Even sections not within the controversy section contain racial accusations (see last sentence here), possibly inflammatory quotes with no context to the article (see second paragraph here), references to negative events of questionable importance to the article (see first paragraph here), or undue weight to the business troubles of a company of which he was formerly a board member, with external links to highly speculative sources (see 2nd and 3rd paragraph). Not only that, but the opening paragraph mentions the macaca controversy. Isn't there more that could be added about his voting record, his political beliefs, legislation he supported that has been passed and legislation on which he was opposed? It seems that there is more information that could be added along these lines. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see strong arguments for removing the quote by Allen's sister about their mother ("infantile"), and for removing the info about graffitti in high school. On the other hand, I'm puzzled by your reference to "speculative sources" (plural) in the "Law partner" section, since only ONE source is partisan (and it's unclear to me exactly what a "speculative" source is.) As you know, wikipedia policy DOES allow use of partisan sources providing that the information from them is objective, as I believe is the case in this section. May I suggest focusing on specific text rather than attacking acceptable sources? John Broughton 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see strong arguments for removing the quote by Allen's sister about their mother ("infantile"), and for removing the info about graffitti in high school.

Good, I hope we can gradually remove some of this.

I'm puzzled by your reference to "speculative sources" (plural)

That was a good catch (to notice the s (to denote plural)). When I was writing, I was thinking only of the one source, but writing about the article in general, so I guess I just added the s to speak about sources in general. That was unintentional. As for the word speculation, I pulled it from our previous discussion.

May I suggest focusing on specific text rather than attacking acceptable sources?

Yes, of course you can suggest that. By all means, go ahead and do so. I'm not going to muzzle you when you're obviously striving to create a better article. But that doesn't mean your suggestion is necessarily a valid one. An article can be made non-NPOV by either the text or the sources. You are correct that the policy does allow partisan sources. However, the second paragraph in this section (in the NPOV policy) also suggests a balanced approach. Maybe there's another source ("partisan" or not) that refutes some of the claims of this (American Prospect) article. On the other hand, perhaps no source yet exists which refutes the information in this (American Prospect) article. If this is the case, I would not suggest deleting the source (as my previous words suggest, I'm can accept the current wording (I don't think it warrants more than 1-2 sentences)). However, that does not mean that this (American Prospect) source, in combination with other wording/sources/etc. is not making the article a little to POV (which I believe it is).

"attacking"

"Criticism" =? "attacking" Ufwuct 01:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're suggesting deleting a properly cited claim when no refutation of it exists, for the sake of "balance"? You're joking, right? Ooops. Sorry, I misread what you said. You said, "I would not suggest deleting the source", and I missed the "not".  :) -- noosphere 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ufuct, if there are a lot of negative claims that can be cited about the subject of a Wikipedia article, there is nothing in WP:NPOV to suggest those claims have to be "balanced" with positive claims, or otherwise sweetened, euphamized, or de-emphasized. WP:NPOV only requires that the claims that are presented in an article are presented fairly and objectively. It does not mean that any given claim has to be "balanced" by an opposing claim, nor that the number of negative claims have to be "balanced" with a similar number of positive claims or anything like that.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Jim Jones may have a large number of claims that don't reflect too kindly on the man. That doesn't mean we have to dig up an equal number of positive claims or brand the article POV. An article may be largely critical of its subject, and still conform to WP:NPOV, as long as the claims are presented fairly and objectively. -- noosphere 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It [NPOV] does not mean that any given claim has to be "balanced" by an opposing claim, nor that the number of negative claims have to be "balanced" with a similar number of positive claims or anything like that. -Noosphere

I agree that no tit-for-tat balance is required. It's only the goal of balance that we should uphold. If there's no more than 1-2 positive things that can be said about the man, well, so be it; if that is the case, the article should contain the 20 (for example) negative things and the 1-2 positive claims. My point was only that we should give it a try (and write a few positive/neutral things, a few more things about his voting record, or sources that dispute some of the claims already present). I believe we have had many enthusiastic editors writing about the controversies since early August, and that is to be expected. I read a little about George Allen long before these controversies arose and seem to remember more than just controversy. Perhaps since I am suggesting that more effort be put forth, I should walk the walk and shoulder this work upon myself (but please don't jump on me if I'm slow about it). Also, per John Broughton's suggestion (see further below in this section), perhaps we can start new sections on this talk page if necessary. Thanks. Ufwuct 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with suggesting that people need to write more positive things about the subject of a Wikipedia article. However that's quite different from claiming that an article is POV because there aren't enough positive things in it. As I pointed out above, that's just not what WP:NPOV is about. It's about fairly and objectively presenting the claims that are written about in the article, not about adhering to a positive to negative claim ratio. -- noosphere 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned four specific places where the text seems POV, and a general concern (controversy section too long, and couldn't more info be added on other topics). I commented on three of these; no one else has responded directly to any of the five, I think. I suspect that there would be more, and more productive, discussion on this page if you were to start five new sections (or, at least, a new section with five bullet points), so that those who want to engage with you on one or more of the points can do so in a more specific way. And then, if/when you do an edit, you can point to the specific section where it was discussed (or you offered to discuss it), rather than pointing to a lengthy section like this one. John Broughton 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion. I don't know if I have the energy to debate in five different sections, but I will create some smaller sections. Also, it appears two of the points I have made aren't really contentious, so maybe they can be changed without discussion. Cheers. Ufwuct 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The people with POV concerns need to explictly described them. Wanting the Macaca statement removed out of the intro. isn't point of view because anyone who has followed the election, Allen, or politics in the last week have know that is what Allen is most famous for right now. It cost him about 10 points in the polls- a huge drop. Arbusto 20:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Any more concerns can we remove the POV tag? Arbusto 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could address the concerns that have been raised before the tag is removed, (regardless of whether there are other outstanding, as-yet-unvoiced concerns)? I made one of the changes last night, testing the waters to see if my edit would experience an immediate revert. It hasn't, so I'll make another change tonight. Other than this edit, I don't know if any other concerns have been addressed, so maybe we should wait to make a few modifications first. I think this topic is still under discussion and I think a few others might be under this impression too (see, for example, J.B.'s 18:50, 4 September 2006 post). Thank you very much for your patience. Ufwuct 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see new section below. Ufwuct 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

LV comment

I can't believe there is no talk page for this article. For someone that people think will be the next Republican presidential candidate, there's not much here. I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction here (yes I know WP is not a crystal ball): Allen-Rice would be a winning ticket for the right, even if HRC does run. Just thought I'd go on record so when it happens, I can have bragging rights. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You should be wrong now that they have visual proof that he is a rampant racist w/r to his macaca incident. John wesley 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No military, no presidency

With the war on terror, Americans will want a strong leader with a military background. When it comes time to pull the lever, Hillary, her lack of international and military experience will make her too weak for voters. George Allen is in the same boat. Gilluiani's pro-choice stance is too liberal for the GOP and the nation is not ready (I am) for a female, black president, with no prior service record (maybe in peace time). That leaves a possible McCain / Kerry show down in 2008 with McCain winning easily.

McCain has done almost everything possible to piss-off the Republican base. He can't get nominated unless he goes ahead and joins the Democrats. All George Allen needs to do is to satisfy the Republican base with his words and actions, and he's a shoo-in to be the next president.

--Bedford 13:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, McCain will never get the Republican nomination. And I think the United States is ready for a female President, even a Black one. The righties already love her, and she would almost for sure pull votes from the Dems solid base of African-Americans and women. And I doubt Kerry will get the Democratic nomination after the beating he (more specifically, his campaign) took last time. Okay... no more of this talk, back to writing articles. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Folks, this page isn't to discuss George Allen, it's to discuss the article about him. I agree with Lord Voldemort's comment: "no more of this talk". For general political conversations, please check out Democratic Underground or Free Republic (those actual websites, not our articles about them). JamesMLane 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

this guy is becoming important

So the fact that he's divorced should be mentioned

--grazon 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I added it, but I haven't found the name of his first wife, the date of the marriage, the date of the divorce, or whether there were any children. All I can find is that USA Today says the divorce occurred "in the early 1980s". [1] We should try to get the full information. JamesMLane 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

this should help: http://www.nndb.com/people/185/000032089/

--grazon 03:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

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

did he call the naacp an extermist group+displayed a Confederate flag+a noose at his home?

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000192.htm

Who cares if he did? I don't. I think the NAACP is an extremist group. He's a former governor of the capital state of the Confederacy. Why shouldn't he have a confederate flag? A noose? Funny sense of humor I think.

Give me something substantive, like he participated in a lynching and you'll have my attention. -dviljoen

He did try to apologize for lynchings at one point as a Senator, but when asked which lynchings he was talking about, he feel silent on advice of counsel. [2]

You're kidding, right? You really think Allen's having such items in his living/working space is inconsequential? Were you asleep during your high school American history class, or just the part that focused on the ninety-year span from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.92.206 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 25 May 2006

Funny sense of humor? How about if a politician had a non-working model of Auschwitz with a Crematorium that actually bellows smoke? Would that be going too far? Sheesh.

Conservatives' front-runner

I was surprised, but I learned earlier in the week that according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, George Allen is outdoing other conservatives currently in the 2008 race for the GOP nomination. He's at 7%, while Frist is at 6% and Romney is in third. Wikipedia, please post this information! -Amit, Feb. 19, 2006

Early Life

Can we get some more on his early life and what his motivations were for getting into politics? He's going to run for President, so we might as well get to know him a little better. Ryanluck 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps information from this New Republic article should be incorporated? - Jersyko·talk 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added some information from the relevant article and also asked permission from TNR to use the high school yearbook photo in this article. - Jersyko·talk 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Allen become a fan of "southern" culture or "western"? I don't want to register to read the article, but the talk about Hee Haw and cowboy boots sounds more country/western than just southern. --Ajdz 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The fascination with Confederate flags sounds like being a fan "southern culture" to me. john k 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus the whole becoming a UVA good old boy thing. john k 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you don't want to register to read the article, why on earth are you questioning the paraphrase of the article by somebody who did? If you want to see if the paraphrase is accurate, read the article. If you don't want to read the article, then don't make comments about what you think it probably says. john k 04:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking here, not changing the text. Relax. --Ajdz 18:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd hoped to get permission to use the yearbook photo from TNR, but I was denied permission to use it without the POV caption. Clearly, we can't use the photo with the caption and adhere to WP:NPOV. It seems they don't want us to use it without the caption, so I won't upload it under a fair use rationale out of respect for their wishes. It's a shame, it's such a nice little picture . . . - Jersyko·talk 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Confederate flag

Part of my recent edit regarding Allen's display of the Confederate flag as a teenager, which Allen has acknowledged and confirmed in one respect (the yearbook lapel pin) and has stated is "entirely possible" in another (the car flag, which was confirmed via an eyewitness), keeps getting removed. The information is verifiable and sourced. I would like to know why, exactly, it keeps getting removed. - Jersyko·talk 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

- Jerysko, The reason it keeps being removed is because you keep re-posting it. This is a cheap political low-blow, the kind of smear jobs that has recently given wikipedia such a bad name. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/28/D8H95FG06.html

I am just struggling to see how the fact that Allen once took a pic with a Confederate flag lapel pin, could be of any value to intellectual discussion. But I see this post and your determination to post it as the obvios political hatchett job that it is. You obviously have an axe to grind against Allen. There is plenty of negative information on Allen(actually probably more than positive) and I have not attempted to erase it.

But I find your blatant attempt to incite hatred of the Senator, by trying to play the race card to be nothing short of reprehensible.

(Also, I may have edited more than three times, but might I remind you that you did the same continually re-posting!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.77.228 (talk • contribs) .

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

Jersyko, While you may have a point that may be cited, it does not mean that it is worthy of being posted nor does it mean that it should be posted. I can find plenty of sources that claim that Armstrong never walked on the moon, but rather the whole thing was filmed in a television studio. Therefore, just because one Magazine (especially one that has seen its reputation destroyed as result of teh Stephen Glass scandal) reports something does not mean that it is worthy of posting.

My objection to this post is that it is intentionally trying to inject racism in to the political debate. I don't see you or anyone else trying to post the fact that Sen. Allen sponsored a bill, formally apologizing to African-Americans for the government's failure to prevent lynchings in the South. Instead, people are trying to find the one piece of evidence that will label him a racist.

I don't find this to be intellectually honest. If you want to talk about Allen and his record on race. But in the same sentence/paragraph that you talk about Confederate flags please post all of the work he has done to repair race relations in this country. That is if you truly believe in acting "in good faith". comment was added by 71.75.77.228

The reason that no one is trying to post the fact about the lynching apology bill is that the bill is already mentioned in the article, and in fact has been since this edit in November 2005. There's no justification for anyone who dislikes Allen to try to censor that information (and I don't think there's been any attempt to censor it). By the same token, there's no justification for anyone who likes Allen to try to censor the information about his pro-Confederate past and his brush with the law arising from his racist vandalism in high school. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I give. Mr. Lane has revealed his ideology, and thus proved the point: Wikipedia is truly the place for smear politics. You all have taken wikipedia and used it to your own ends. You win, I concede, the wikipedia universe is obviously not for the likes of me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.77.228 (talk • contribs) .

You said, "I can find plenty of sources that claim that Armstrong never walked on the moon, but rather the whole thing was filmed in a television studio." But can you find reliable sources (like a respected newspaper or political journal like TNR) that make that claim? And has Armstrong himself admitted that it was true, like Allen's office confirming the flag lapel pin and saying the car flag was "entirely possible"??? Wikipedia is not the place for "smear politics." It is also not the place to carefully choose to include facts that are only praiseworthy of political candidates. The article mentions his use of the confederate flag when he was in high school, but NOWHERE does it say "Allen is a racist." In fact, the article mentions that Allen supported the lynching apology bill last year. The reader is left to form his or her own opinion of Allen; the article is merely presenting the facts from reputable sources. - Jersyko·talk 14:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article in The New Republic is a major article about Allen in a well-respected (Glass aside) publication. Much of the information in it was apparently confirmed by Allen's office. Personally, I think that more could be said - notably the stuff in his sister's memoirs about him being (essentially) a sadistic bully when they were children might be worth a mention (although I'd prefer to cite directly from the book, and not from Lizza's paraphrase of it). The claims that 71.75.77.228 has made about The New Republic and comparisons of this article to moon hoax theories are the most serious smears here. These seem to verge on defamation of Ryan Lizza. john k 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is 129.137.84.230 a sock puppet for 71.75.77.228? Not very mature. This is clearly relevant information, from a reputable source. One plagarizer (Stephen Glass), caught and fired, does not make an entire news outfit (TNR) forever inaccurate. If 71/75.77.228/129.137.84.230 would like to make a wortwhile NPOV contribution to the entry he/she/they should create a new section on "allegations racial insensitivity" that mentions both the New Republic material, Allen's early voting history on issues such Martin Luther King day, and the more recent voting history on issues such apologizing for lynching. Just removing unpleasant but apparnetly truthful information violates the principles of Wikipedia, as well as plain honesty. Lucky Adrastus 22:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I removerd this as well the controversies section as this does not conform to a neutral point of view. WARNING TO THE PERSON WHO KEEPS POSTING THIS. If you are going to keep bringing up ad hominem and unverifiable attacks, I will do my best to see to it that your privelages here arte terminated. Use facts and keep this article neutral. The New Republic piece is also full of unverifiable sources. I could just as easily edit Al Gore's article by truthfully proclaiming that he receives payments from a mining company for use of porperty he owns. Or that he still owns many shares of Occidental Petroleum, but without the other side of the story, that woudl not be neutral. By cherry pciking what you chose to put in here you are violating neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nnoppinger (talk • contribs) .

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

Article name change

This article's name has been changed recently by Calmypal. The first time the reason was: "Consistency with other politician George Wigram Allen" (refering to a 19th century Australian politician). The second time with the reason: "I don't see a compelling reason to keep this at George Allen (politician). People looking for him there will still find him, via a disambiguaton page, which will not be unusual for anyone pare"

With hundreds of articles linked to this page, and the potential for this article to become quite active in the future, I would like comments on what the proper name should be for this article. Should it remain at George Allen (politician), where is has been for most of its history this year, or at George Felix Allen, the name preferred by Calmypal? Or something else?

Whatever the choice, it is not so great to make people go through an extra disambiguation page if he is now the primary person with this name that people will be searching for. So perhaps George Allen should be made a redirect to this article and the disambiguation page put at George Allen (disambiguation). NoSeptember ^talk 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was cut off. The second reason should be followed by, "nthesising it." Anyway, NoSeptember's done a good job summarising the situation and I'll wait for feedback. All I have to add is that I would not have moved it again if someone had reverted me within an hour, even a day, after I first moved it. By Wikipedia standards, a week is ages, and I took this as implicit approval. - Calmypal (T) 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

During a slow period (and pre-midterm elections is a deliberately slow period for potential presidential candidates), a week before being reverted doesn't indicate much of anything :-). NoSeptember ^talk 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the George Allen page should go directly to this article, and a disambiguation notice be placed at the top. Allen's prominence can only grow in the coming years, and even now, he is by far the most prominent of the "George Allens"--RWR8189 01:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Jkatzen 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here. A disambig link at the top would suffice. - Jersyko·talk 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This George Allen is the only living one with a Wikipedia article, and is surely the most prominent. I recommend that we vote on moving this to "George Allen" and linking to "George Allen (disambiguation)" at the top of the page. — Elembis 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

George Felix Allen is just bad. He should be at either George Allen or George Allen (politician) or George Allen (U.S. politician), depending on how prominent we find him to be. I'd say that he's prominent enough that George Allen is probably fine. john k 02:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the preceeding comments. This article should be at George Allen with a disambig link at the top. NoSeptember ^talk 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree; he never uses his middle name, and is also never referred to in the media by his full name. Article titles are supposed to reflect the name most commonly used. If he's nominated for president, then he should be under George Allen, with the others noted under George Allen (disambiguation); until that happens, he should be under George Allen (politician) (or arguably George Allen (U.S. politician)). MisfitToys 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I considered moving it to George Allen (politician), but there was a Canadian MP of that name, as well -- what about George Allen (U.S. politician)? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

George Felix Allen → George Allen – Rationale: Discussion at Talk:George Felix Allen suggests that the American politician is notable enough to deserve "George Allen".

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. This George Allen is the only living one with a Wikipedia article. — Elembis 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Allen is a likely presidential candidate and his stature can only grow from this point.--RWR8189 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I read about George Allen a lot, but I've never heard of a George Felix Allen.--Smashingworth 06:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looking at George Allen (football), and at the list of links to that article, makes me think that the father has enough prominence that no one George Allen should be at George Allen. If the son gets elected President, that would change. If George Allen remains a dab page, I'd be OK with moving this article to George F. Allen or George Allen (politician), either of which seems a more natural title. (Currently, both of them redirect here.) JamesMLane t c 10:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support the move. The links list for the father/football coach is surprisingly short, and since his prominent period was decades old, I doubt many will be searching for him (relatively speaking), a disambig link to handle those who are is completely adequate. NoSeptember ^talk 10:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support per others' comments Jkatzen 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now; if he runs, we can come back to this. Septentrionalis 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Too many George Allens and someone more famous is bound to come along. Skinnyweed 16:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, I still think the football coach is better known (or at least he is in my circles). Certainly, if this guy wins the nomination, or even comes close to winning the nomination, then he would definitely become the dominant George Allen and then we this the main page.--Deville (Talk) 19:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, I forgot to mention this but also I think the name of this page should be moved (back?) to George Allen (politician).--Deville (Talk) 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allegations by Allen's Sister

Sorry, I should have posted here first. I removed this material because I thought the context of its inclusion was POV. Unlike the Confederate Flag material, which is undisputed by Allen, and supported by photographic evidence, these allegations are based only on the word of Allen's sister and, to my knowledge, disputed by Allen. I don't mean they're not true, I just think they should not be given as much weight here as undisputed facts. I think they probably belong in the Wikipedia entry, I just don't think they should be one of the first pieces of information about the subject. But I'm willing to leave this up to the judgment of more experienced editors. Lucky Adrastus 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the POV issues a little by making them their own subsection and clearly noting several times that the events allegedly occurred. Jkatzen 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think these are pretty good changes. I still think this might somehow be better placed lower in the article or something, since the allegations are so inflammatory, but I'm sure that if Allen becomes a major candidate, they'll be new information to fill the article out. Lucky Adrastus 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucky - do you have any evidence that Allen has disputed his sister's claims? I assume he has not confirmed them, but we can't simply assume that he has disputed them simply because she said he did a lot of rotten things. I don't know, maybe he has disputed them, but you need to present some evidence of that. I don't think it should be in its own section, either. We do need to make clear that these are her allegations, but I don't think we need to go crazy about that. One thing I would like is to be able to cite this material to the book directly, rather than just to Lizza's article - all of the incidents we mention are ones mentioned by Lizza, so I assume that nobody's actually taken a look at the book itself. john k 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clearer - it's overkill and bad writing to make every sentence start with an awkward locution that indicates that these are just Jennifer Allen's claims. It should be sufficient to mention this once, and to make sure that other sentences do not try to claim outright that what she is saying is true. john k 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

John Kenny -- Thanks for the comments and edits. I think you are right that no one here has read the book (well at least I haven't). As for evidence of "dispute", Allen's "disputing" comes from the Lizza article itself. Lizza asked him about the book and Allen responded "It's the perspective of the youngest child, who is a girl". I think that counts as disputing. But you're also right that it comes off as akward to constantly repeat that these are allegations. I think the way you put it is fine and clear. I still feel that the effective prominence of the allegations isn't really "fair" to Allen (who I don't much like, whatever it's worth). It seems to me like the kind of information that belongs in a controversy section or something like that, probably after his accomplishments in office, which are arguably more "important". Perhaps it's the repeat of the "dentist" quote, which isn't an action taken by Allen, but rather an accusation by his sister. Lucky Adrastus 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds to me as though Allen is very clearly not disputing any of his sister's factual allegations. That doesn't mean that he is admitting that they happened, but he's also not saying "I never held my sister by the feet over Niagara Falls or threw my brother through a glass door," which would be how I would understand him "disputing" the allegations. If anything, I'd say that Allen is essentially admitting that these events took place, but disputing his sister's interpretation of them. john k 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of Agrifolia's recent, extensive, edits, but they appear to handle this material correctly (i.e. including it, but placing it near end of article). Lucky Adrastus 08:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

position on assault weapons ban

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

What primary would that be? John Broughton 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporarilly removed from American lawyers cat

I temporarilly removed this article from Category:American lawyers because it never mentions him actually practicing law. He might be licensed to practice, but there's no mention of it in the article which means that, currently, the article shouldn't be in that category. (It's not verified in the article, and he's apparently not notable for practicing law.)

Now if the article is expanded with verified information about him practicing law in his state, then go ahead and place him in the appropriate subcategory of Category:American lawyers by state.Dugwiki 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with Pat Robertson Section

I'd like to make an argument that this small section should be removed. It's language is NPOV, but I don't think it is terribly relevant. It basically accounts to repeating a press release from a single group criticizing Allen. And it's really a criticism of Robertson, who, while certainly deserving criticism, in no more connected to Allen than to most other prominent Republican politicians. There also hasn't been any kind of ensuing criticism of Allen in this regard, certainly it hasn't been a big press story.

At the least, Allen's response through his press secretary should be included. If there isn't any disagreement, I'll remove the section in a few days. Lucky Adrastus 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, and I'm not an Allen fan. It seems to be a minor controversy at best. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm no fan of Allen's either. This just didn't strike me as Wikipedia material. Lucky Adrastus 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

'Makaka' Controversy

Re: the intro: honestly, to include the controversy up there at this point -- when it hasn't even managed to make headlines for a full news cycle -- seems obviously biased. Can we at least wait until some other reliable sources -- say, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Virginian-Pilot, the Roanoke Times, The Hotline, take your pick -- run stories on this and develop it further before we push it into the lede? --GGreeneVa 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the story had not been reported in the Washington Post, I would agree with you (article here). The fact that it has, however, makes the story verifiable in a reliable source. I know there's a lot of blog chatter out there about this, and we need to be diligent to ensure that blog speculation does not make its way into the article. However, since it is not original research and is described in this article in a way that is in line with the WaPo article, making it, in my opinion, neutral for now (though perhaps it should be tweaked), it is appropriate to mention it. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh -- I know about the Post article (sorry I didn't clarify). I wasn't picking a fight about whether to include it in the article; it verifiably happened, it's newsworthy, so by all means, yeah, let's put it in. But as for putting it in the intro: to me, the story doesn't rise to that level of significance yet, because it hasn't had time to develop. In a day or so, once we see where this is heading, who knows? But while it's article-ready, it's not intro-worthy yet, IMHO. --GGreeneVa 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My fault for not noticing that you were referring to the intro only, actually. I think you're probably right on that point. I will remove the description from the intro for now. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there documentation (in, say, a dictionary of American slang) for the three-syllable pronunciation of macaque? (It's two syllables in both French & standard English.) The alternate pronunciation seems like a likely Anglicization to me, but I haven't been able to verify it readily. Billbrock 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Per comments on a political blog (sorry, misplaced the link): apparently the three-syllable pronunciation is common in southern France (cf. the similar pronunciation of the final syllable in "Frère Jacques"). Billbrock 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The section couldn't get any more POV. It doesn't matter how Allen's comment could be interpreted, it matters what he meant. "Macaca" could also mean 'idiot POV pushing liberals,' but obviously that isn't what he meant. Anything off topic will be removed. Haizum 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguably if Allen let slip a racist comment, he isn't going to be honest about what it meant. The possible meanings of "Macaca" or "Macaque" are relevant to this story, especially given the French pronounciation, his French language background, and his family's Tunisian background. Removing the sections pertaining to that are very POV on your part. - Aurostion 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Other articles on the incident that've come out in the last day or so:

• CNN.com
• India Daily
• The Hindustan Times
• The Associated Press
• The Hampton Roads Daily Press
• The Roanoke Times
• The Richmond Times-Dispatch

Looks like the story's starting to break pretty wide. There was already an op-ed against it in the Post, in addition to the factual article mentioned earlier. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Query: does that quote from Allen deserve credit as an apology? What the Post said aside, the words themselves seem to say "I'm sorry you took exception," not "I'm sorry I said that." The latter assumes responsibility; the former, not so much. --GGreeneVa 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make a minor tweak to elide -- that is, skate around -- this point. Shouldn't affect POV. --GGreeneVa 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to recomment that we remove the following paragraphs as they are complete speculation on both sides.

The word macaque refers to a type of monkey, and has occasionally been used as a racial slur against dark-skinned Africans. The word could also have been "macaca" or "mukakkah," a French and Belgian slur for dark skinned peoples of North African descent.[14] Allen's mother immigrated from French Tunisia and is of French descent.[15] Allen speaks French and obtained excellent grades in French as an undergraduate.[16] Allen's campaign maintains that the word was used in reference to Sidarth's apparent mohawk.[12] However, Sidarth's haircut is not a mohawk but a mullet.

An Allen press aide initally dismissed the racial incident with an expletive. Allen has since claimed that he had heard his staff use the term "macaca" in reference to Sidarth, that he did not know what the word meant, and that he did not intend to insult Sidarth's ethnicity when he singled him out to the crowd. "I do apologize if he's offended by that," Allen said, adding that "I would never want to demean him as an individual."[12] On August 15th, Allen's communication director told the New York Times that members of Allen's campaign "good-naturedly" nicknamed Sidarth "Mohawk" when speaking among themselves, but could not explain how the word morphed into "macaca."[17]

On August 16th, the National Journal reported that two Virginia Republicans who heard the word used by Allen's campaign staff said "macaca" was a neologism created from "Mohawk" and "caca," Spanish slang for excrement. "Said one Republican close to the campaign: 'In other words, [Sidarth] was a shit-head, an annoyance.'"[18]

This incident should be reported with possibly some comments form both sides, however these areguments are opnion and do not belong in an encyclopedia. We are speculating on intent. I will wait fo additional comments from wiki's. Nnoppinger 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm cautious about citing the Nationmaster.com article as a source for Macaca as a racial slur, in part because the page itself states: This article or section contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing sources. I don't think there is any doubt about Makaka being a racial slur and I have provided some cites on Macaca (slur) that support it being a racial epithet, but no-one has come up with anything scholarly or verifiable as yet. Richardjames444 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a better idea to make this section significantly smaller and link to the new S.R. Sidarth article (that I basically wrote form this section) since this controversy may be swept under the rug within a week. This Senator has been around for awhile and to have such a large section on a brand-new news item seems silly. I think it belongs in its own entry that this page can link to. Claymoney 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tramm Hudson could give Allen a few pointers on how to make an apology. Richardjames444 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If Allen´s mother was italian, French and a "little Spanish" (i love the little) it means Allens knows perfectly that in those cultures macaca or more correctly "macaco" is an insult directed at people with dark skin, like calling somebody "monkey". I find also interesting that Allen´s mother Tunisian origin makes her what some French (the racist kind) call a "pied noir", a French person from the colonies who might have picked up there some local blood. It´s ironic to find Allen on the other side of racism. —The preceding [J.M. Rodríguez]] .

Other criticisms

I have removed this in its entirety as these are personal opnions and have no place in an encyclopedia. Many people may find Al Gore to be a an idiot, but that not would have any place in his article. Nnoppinger 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nnoppinger is referring to this section. I commented above, but here it is again: Perhaps you're right about the Al Gore criticism, anyway, it seems like a minor criticism at best. The other criticism in the "other criticisms" section, however, is sourced to the Washingtonian (magazine). I'm not sold on its inclusion, but it seems that it would be at least somewhat more approrpriate for an encyclopedia article because it does have such a source. In any event, I'm ok with the removal of that one subsection (though obviously not the entire "controversies" section). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see any NPOV violations in the main "Criticisms" section, although I do agree that the "other criticisms" section needs work. Before I remove the NPOV tag from the main section, can anyone point out to me what exactly is in violation of NPOV there? --Folksong 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Violations of NPOV Including an as yet,unsubstantiated charge without bothering to look into the otehr side. Including weasel words like "long asscociation with the Confederate flag," which insinuates guilt. Not to mention the fact of giving it three paragraphs and the appearance that it is a major issue, when it is not. I could equally smear, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and many others on the left with similar stories, yet that would not be appropriate in an encyclopedia, unless they become a major issue. Giving undue weight to the macaque issue, and adding what the author believes what is meant. The last section is just listing the opinion of people who are political enemies of George Allen. Again I could do the same to people on the left. Ann Coulter makes money by doing this very thing, yet her opinions are just that and have no place in an encyclopedia other than mentioning them for news. The only line that belongs is point made about the morning after pill and that should be elaborated on and expanded. Giving both Allens' views, as well as, the views of his opponents. Not to mention the fact that several of the people who keep editing this, "Sterling Newberry" and "webbfor senate," identify themselves as democrat operatives.Nnoppinger 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

With respect to the controversies section, I've looked through it, here's my opinion of what's worth keeping. Done in no particular order, here we go:

• I'm unsure if the stock in Barr Labs thing is worth keeping. Yes, it got an article in the WaPo, but not much else, and if it weren't for the fact that it was hapening right in their backyard it probably wouldn't even have gotten that. It's also something that I doubt will stick around. What I mean is: after this campaign season is over, will anyone care? If the answer is no, then it should only be in the article on the Virginia U.S. Senate election, 2006.
• The confederate flag thing is definitely notable. I remember that hitting, it made quite a furor, major papers picked it up after TNR ran the article, and I doubt it's going to go away.
• The "Other Criticisms" bit seems rather iffy. Why include those two allegations specifically? It's generally not all that notable if a politician of one party calls the views of the politician of another party stupid. That's par for the course. It seems to me that both of the criticisms in this section are just unimportant throwaway remarks.
• The "macaca controversy". This is getting a lot of play right now, and it seems to be spreading. I'd say it's worth keeping in the article for now - if it completely fades away, it can be condensed and/or moved to the Virginia U.S. Senate election, 2006 article.
• His sister's remarks. On the one hand, it is news-worthy when someone's own sister goes beyond just saying "he was a bully as a boy" and calls him an outright sadist. On the other, I don't know, it just doesn't feel like it entirely fits. Would it be better to incorporate this into the "Early Years" biographical section? Not the whole thing, but a sentence, like: "George Allen's sister has accused him of bullying and sadism during this time in his life."

So the bottom line is that I would get rid of the Barr Labs thing and the Other Criticisms section, keep the Macaca and the Confederate flag sections, and condense/rearrange the sister section. modargo 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your points are convincing, modargo. I support your proposed changes. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I agree the Barr Laboratories thing is notable enough for the campaign page , since it does seem to be a relatively lively part of the campaign. However, it would be better if it included whatever his campaign's response to the issue (which I don't know right now of the top of my head). I.E. did he sell the stock, issue a statement clarifying/apologizing or whatever. Lucky Adrastus 16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

These changes have been implemented, the NPOV tag has been removed, and a section on the Barr Labs controversy has been added to the Virginia U.S. Senate election, 2006 article, with a summary of Allen's response to it. modargo 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job! I like the Barr Labs section in the campaign article too. Lucky Adrastus 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree with modargo, except for Barr Labs. I think this will become a controversial news item, because it shows some hypocrisy. It should be balanced with factual statements from both sides. I am not in a position to do so now, but I will do some work and cite the sources. I still think the confederate flag thing is being given a little too much coverage. It also needs to be balanced. There are some left wing assumptions about the flag and its connotations being made in this article. I would also like to see Allen's response to his sister. I am not familiar with her book and I am wondering if this over playing childhood pranks or actual sadism. I also question since it would apparently seem this behavior to carry over into adulthood, as there are no recent allegations. Nnoppinger 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I would like to give you a little example of biased writing in the article. "...Long association with the Confederate Flag," implying the Confederate flag in a negative tone. An encyclopedia should avoid words and phrases that show bias. A word like "ilk" come to mind. This article is the not the proper place for a discussion over the merits of the flag. I think that the issue is also discussed in detail under the governor section. I could easily enter a section for Bill Clinton, that would have headline "Accused Rapist" and mention the J. Broderick story. However, by doing so would show an unscholarly bias. It would sensationalize and that is not what an encyclopedia should be doing. I would like to make changes to this and add under the Governor section a passage about Confederate History and Heritage Month, particularly that Virigina receives millions of dollars of tourism money for its Civil War sites. I will refrain from doing so pending additional comments from other wiki's.Nnoppinger 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Looked at the Clinton "Broaderick" paragraph, which I thought was well written. It mentioned the scandal and presented the facts in a matter that would appear to be unbiased. It may be that I am overly sensitive.Nnoppinger 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The caption next to the picture of Allen pointing at the videographer is in error. It says 'Allen points to Webb volunteer, Sidarth, referring to him as a "Macaca".' -- This is not true. Allen didn't call Sidarth a macaca, he called him Macaca, as if that were his name. Big, big difference.

Editing frequency too quick

Since so many are editing this article lately, it's hard to add a good edit summary without getting an edit conflict. The reasons for my revert are: 1. POV wording (using the word "taunt"/"taunting" (again)) 2. No need for the whole quote. As long as the context is given, the whole quote is not needed. It's an article about a U.S. Senator first and foremost; let's not let this section overwhelm the article, when it will certainly be trimmed down later, as this incident dies down. Thanks. Ufwuct 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV (I agree it was POV) but left the full quote. I find the context interesting and relevant, and believe it does not overwhelm the article. If anything in the Macaca section is to be excised, I think the quote is the last thing that should be. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost positive it will be trimmed later on, but I'm not going to get in race in editing or reverting. 100+ edits in the last 24 hours is a bit too much stress for me. And I'm not recommended losing the entire quote. Do you really think the whole thing is necessary? Especially since the video is available? That makes it more like a transcript than a quotation. Ufwuct 00:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Xybernaut

Note: Jersyko removed this section, which I added to the article, seven minutes after it was added, with the edit summary "There's no evidence that Allen did anything illegal, and he has not been named in any shareholder suits" - let's wait and see if he is. until then, this is pure speculation."

If the objection is to putting this in the controversies section, then it should go elsewhere, NOT be removed entirely. It DOES provide new and newsworthy information about Allen, and it belongs in the article. I am posting it here for others to examine, comment on, and/or put back into the article, since presumably few people read it during the seven minutes it was in the article. John Broughton 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On August 11, 1998, Allen joined the board of directors of Xybernaut, a company that planned to sell wearable, flip-screen computers. He remained on the board until December 2000. Allen said of the firm: "This is not science fiction -- the future is here now!"

Between its founding in 1990 and 2005, the company sold only 10,000 mobile computers, while racking up losses of $162 million, and issuing 200 million shares of stock. In September 1999, the company’s accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, issued a "going concern" letter with a grim assessment of the company’s financial health. The board of directors authorized the firing of the accounting firm, which was replaced by Grant Thornton, and authorized more stock sales.

Xybernaut filed for bankruptcy reorganization in July 2005, after an internal investigation reported that the firm’s chief executive officer and board chairman, former CIA agent Edward Newman, and his brother, the president and chief operating officer, had "improperly used substantial company funds for personal expenses," engaged in major unreported transactions, and hired family members whose roles with the company were not properly disclosed. As of mid-2006, the firm is embroiled in legal cases and federal investigations. It has about a dozen employees in Chantilly, Virginia, a small fraction of the 140 employed at the firm's peak.

There's no evidence that Allen did anything illegal, and he has not been named in any shareholder suits. But there were problems while he was there, in addition to the firing of the auditing firm, the huge losses, and the sale of large amounts of stock. Mark Bergman, a director of investor relations at Xybernaut during Allen’s tenure, was also the founder of financial public relations firm Access 1 Financial, which gave Xybernaut a "strong buy" recommendation. The firm boasted of that recommendation several times in in early 2000, and the stock zoomed more than 300 percent in value, peaking at $29.97 on March 2, 2000; it did not mention that Bergman wrote his reports for companies that paid him, and not as a credible financial analyst. Another promoter of the company’s stock, the Donner Corp, was charged in 2006 with issuing 25 reports between March 1999 and May 2002 that "contained fraudulent, exaggerated and unwarranted statements, and failed to include critical information about numerous companies’ financial and business operations," and also for failing to disclose that Donner had been paid by 51 companies it was touting, including Xybernaut, to prepare positive statements.

Allen was granted 110,000 options of company stock that, at their peak, were worth $1.5 million, but he never exercised those options, which expired 90 days after he left the board, and made almost no money from the stock, according to his communications director, John Reid. But he did benefit:

• While Allen was serving on the Xybernaut board, he was also a partner at the law firm McGuire Woods LLP. In 1998 and 1999, that firm billed $315,925 to Xybernaut for legal work and was also granted 1,996 shares of stock in lieu of payment for services rendered. According to a disclosure form Allen filed on May 12, 2000, he earned $450,000 from McGuire Woods from January 1999 through April 2000, a period when the firm did work for Xybernaut.

• Xybernaut officers -- four directors, an advisory board member, the comptroller, and an officer’s wife -- donated a total of $10,750 to Friends of George Allen in 1999 and 2000. And McGuire Woods staff donated $31,625 to the same fund during Allen’s 1999-2000 Senate campaign.

"It’s possible that those sorts of things could have gone on without a board of directors knowing about it, but it’s unlikely that a properly functioning board of directors would miss all of that," said David Skeel, a corporate law specialist at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Allen has refused repeated requests to discuss his relationship to Xybernaut.

"Just a Gigolo: In the go-go ’90s, George Allen sat on the board of a Virginia tech company. Now, the company faces several class-action suits and an SEC insiders probe."

(the above source was listed as a reference for this deleted section)

You've provided only one source for all of this text. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus it's not a mainstream source by any stretch, maybe not even a reliable source. Also, as User:Jersyko said, it's speculation. When mainstream sources pick up the story, or if he's convicted or charged with anything, add more. For now, I don't think it warrants more than 1-2 sentences (something like "he was involved with Xy.. company which went bankrupt in 2005 and ... Allen's served on the board from 1998 to 2000."). Otherwise, it's just speculation and guilt by association. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While I disagre with Ufwuct regarding the general usefulness of the Prospect as a source, I think s/he's basically right regarding the notability and relevance of the information. The article referenced even says that no charges have been brought against Allen and that he has not been directly implicated. We have to be careful with undue weight, too, especially when the section added is so long compared to the rest of the article. I might have a different reaction if a very short blurb were added, though I think I would still fall on the non-inclusion side for now given the completely undeveloped, speculative nature of the story. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the Prospect is a reliable source depends on what you're relying on them for. As the sole source for speculative article? Then they're probably not reliable. For other cases, they are probably reliable enough to meet wikipedia standards. It just depends on the circumstances. I would say even more mainstream sources like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal wouldn't qualify in some cases (e.g., an editorial from either paper with unsourced information (and information that couldn't be backed up from other sources) was provided as the source for a statistic). Thanks. Ufwuct 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is much better, John. It removes speculation in favor of merely reporting the facts. The only question, I suppose, could be undue weight, but I think it's safely on the right side of the line. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

mullets and their prevalence in the South

First: Does Sidarth have a mullet? I haven't seen evidence that he does. He might, but we need to verify this. In the pictures I've seen, the back of his head is not visible. Second: Pointing out that mullets are "common in the South" borders on original research, not least because it may be an erroneous assumption. They're prevalent in many rural areas, as a drive through the backwaters of many northern states will reveal. It's also irrelevant to the article. I see it's been put back again, so I'd be interested to see some evidence of this elusive mullet. Thanks.--Birdmessenger 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some research into this very important issue and found that Sidarth describes his own haircut as a mullet. Fine. I still have to object to the text noting that these are "common in the South." --Birdmessenger 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He calls his own haircut a mullet... The poor kid must have missed 1985 - 1995: The Age of the Mullet. Now THOSE were mullets. (See Billy Ray Cyrus). --AStanhope 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Business up front and party in the back, not that I would have ever had one. :) --StuffOfInterest 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Governor

Removed the last sentence" ...Gilmore repudiated..." as it is factually incorrect. As reported in the January 31, 2004, Washingtom Times, "Confederate History Month Rises Again" Christina Bellantoni —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nnoppinger (talk • contribs) .

Put it back. Cited source. [3] TNR is reliable. Please provide factual evidence to contradict. modargo 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I cited the article in the proceeding statement. I will also add the Richmond Times Dispatch, 3/15/2002 Michael Hardy column, "Warner Nixes Confederate History Month." The New Republic article is an op-ed piece from an op-ed publication that has history of sketchy fact checking. I will again remove the sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nnoppinger (talk • contribs) .

Claiming that there are articles that refute a statement does not in and of itself refute a statement. Provide links to or pictures of the articles. Right now, all you have is hearsay. That is not sufficient. modargo 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As you wish.

removed copyright violation

Would you like the other article?Nnoppinger 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nnoppinger, please don't reproduce the entire article here, as it raises copyright concerns. Perhaps provide a web link to the article instead, and quote it selectively to make your point. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That article specifically backs up the claim that Gilmore changed the proclamation to one about both sides of the Civil War (i.e., it denounced slavery in addition to celebrating Confederate culture) from Allen's that only commemorated Confederate culture (and did not mention slavery). modargo 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Also, please just provide a link to the article. modargo 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But again that is fat cry from "repudiation." For three of those years under Gilmore the proclamation stayed exactly the same as it was under Allen>Nnoppinger 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Thank you for the change. I think it takes out the POV.Nnoppinger 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited out the "citation needed" flags that were ALL OVER the governor section, some of which were just assinine (Northern Virginia, boomed during this time period, particularly in the technology area-not the sort of thing that needs a source). It looked terrible, and seemed like some partisan just wanted to question everything on the page. If someone wants to add some back, pls do but dont every line in a paragraph. JamesBenjamin 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge of S.R. Sidarth article

The S.R. Sidarth article is essentially a copy of the Macaca incident section of this page. Sidarth is essetially NN outside of this context, so I think it would be appropriate to merge any extra pertinent info from the Sidarth article (I'm not sure there is any) and then replace the page with a redirect to George Felix Allen#macaca controversy. Any takers? Richardjames444 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sidarth is, at the moment, nn outside of his connection with Allen. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with merge. S.R. Sidarth is not himself notable, only his role in this incident is. modargo 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sidarth is not notable except for association with Allen and this controversy. Sandover 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Very much agree. --StuffOfInterest 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just looked again and I don't think there is anything there worth merging. All the important facts are already in the article. It should probably just be put to AfD and be done with. --StuffOfInterest 19:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur with this judgement. I took a look at the S.R. Sidarth article and I do not see any notable information in it that is not already in the controversies section of this article. modargo 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No question that he's NN at the present time except for this incident. Stirling Newberry 23:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So case closed, then. The only information in the Sidarth biography not reproduced on Allen's page is that he is 20 years old, that he currently attends the University of Virginia, that he will begin his senior year there in September 2006, and that he was a 2003 graduate of the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, VA. All of that came from a Washington Post article. I think most of this is irrelevant except for his age, which I added to the Allen article after making the merge. Sandover 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted the change to a redirect. Sidarth is not a synonym to Allen so it just doesn't seem the way to go. I've gone ahead and created an AfD entry for him. If a few people put their votes in early an admin is likely to come along and close it out right away. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also from the Sidarth entry, but important: "Sidarth was interviewed by CNN on August 15th, 2006, and said he was 'disappointed that someone like a Senator of the United States could use something [so] completely offensive.' He disputed a claim made by Allen campaign staff that he would not give his name, saying he introduced himself to Allen earlier in the week." See YouTube. Sandover 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any verification-aside from Sidarth's assertion-that he did give the Allen campaign his full name?

In other words, a second source buttressing his claim?

From what I've heard it's a point of contention.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Sidarth gave his "full name" is a bit of a distraction from the controversy, don't you think? As I understand his interview, Sidarth says he shook Allen's hand and gave his name as just that one word, 'Sidarth' (he apparently introduces himself to others that way). I don't think it really matters whether he gave Allen his initials, too. Isn't the point that in an on-camera interview, made before the online version of the New York Times story on August 15th (for which John Reid claimed Sidarth never identified himself to the Allen campaign, therefore justifying a nickname), Sidarth says he met Allen, shook his hand, and gave his name? Sandover 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I redirected the article to George Felix Allen#Macaca controversy for now. Depending on the result of some other conversations, I might change it to the Virginia U.S. Senator election, 2006#The monkey/macaca controversy at some point, which would be substantively the same. Richardjames444 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that this controversy hinges-to a great extent-upon whether or not Sidarth's word is reliable.

Namely, did he actually give Senator Allen his name, either partially or in full?

If he says he gave Allen his name, but no independent authority comes forward to verify this statement, how can it be described as a statement of fact?

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Allen's book

We need page citations for this section:

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

C56C 00:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Found the citations/quotes[4]:

Explaining why she is scared of heights, Ms. Allen writes that “Ever since my brother George held me over the railing at Niagara Falls, I’ve had a fear of heights.” [Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter, page 43]

Referring to George’s relationship with one of her boyfriends: “My brother George welcomed him by slamming a pool cue against his head.” [Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter, page 178]

Referring to George’s early leadership skills, Jennifer wrote: “We all obeyed George. If we didn't, we knew he would kill us. Once, when Bruce refused to go to bed, George hurled him through a sliding glass door. Another time, when Gregory refused to go to bed, George tackled him and broke his collarbone. Another time, when I refused to go to bed, George dragged me up the stairs by my hair.” [Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter, page 22]

Referring to George’s early career aspirations, Jennifer wrote “George hoped someday to become a dentist. George said he saw dentistry as a perfect profession - getting paid to make people suffer.” [Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter, page 22]

Referring to George’s habit of terrorizing a Green Bay Packer fan in their neighborhood, Jennifer wrote that the fan’s mailbox often “lay smashed in the street, a casualty of my brothers' drive-by to school in the morning. George would swerve his Mach II Mustang while Gregory held a baseball bat out the window to clear the mailbox off its post. . . . Lately, the Packers fan had resorted to stapling a Kleenex box to the mailbox post to receive his mail. George's red Mustang screeched up beside us, the Packers fan's Kleenex mailbox speared on the antenna.” [Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter, page 16]

Where does 'Macaca controversy' section belong?

Noticed this morning that the bulk of this section had been shunted over to the Virginia United States Senate election, 2006 article. That section was outdated -- it looked like a copy and paste of an old version of this article -- so I got what was edited out here and pasted it over there. I also rv'ed this article, however, until folks could powwow here about whether cutting this material out of the George Allen article makes sense.

Any thoughts? --GGreeneVa 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me it's part of the election, and would be better served over there. If the information here is more recent, I'd move it over to there.--Rosicrucian 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems much more appropriate in the Allen article than the election article. This was something Allen did. The fact that it was something he did because he was running for an elected office is important, of course, but its affect on the election, if any, is undetermined. Additionally, the election article might raise undue weight concerns by including a long description of macaca (instead of a summary with a link to the relevant subsection in this article). · j e r s y k o talk · 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an event on the campaign trail of the election, involving Allen and one of Webb's aides. If anything, it's too big a section for Allen's article, so I think that's undue weight if anything. The election article is an actual current event article, and thus I have no problem with it exploring the incident in more detail than this article.

After the election is over, this section will likely be just a footnote in Allen's article, and condensed greatly. Why not give it the attention it deserves in the election article instead, where said work will be preserved?--Rosicrucian 15:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As there's been no further dissent on this, I've merged the info into the election article, made sure it's the most current form there, and truncated the section here with a main article link.--Rosicrucian 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

POV concerns

This article is not NPOV at all. Indeed, I think it approaches a smear job on Allen, because presents the facts of all the George Allen controversies in the most negative light possible. Oh, there are gratuitous swipes at Allen as well ("In 1994, George Allen endorsed a convicted felon, Oliver North, for the U.S. Senate), but what I am most concerned about is the fact that all of these mini-controversies are presented without any attempt to present Allen's side of the story. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

I agree. The same can be said for other articles in Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions for improving the article, such as giving "Allen's side" of his storied affection for the confederate flag and his love of cute memorabilia such as the hangman's noose?--RattBoy 09:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, which controversies do you have a problem with, and what's the phrases or lack of perspective you have a problem? Arbusto 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a little while longer before I pull the POV tag off, but POV issues must be discussed if you put the tag on. Arbusto 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV nature of this article is currently being discussed in two places. Please see the section called POV for the suggestions being made to improve the article to NPOV standards. Thanks. Ufwuct 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

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

Almanac

In the course of my edit this morning I removed information cited to the Almanac of American Policits, 1994, from the article. The information read

This occurred because the Justice Department required Virginia to draw a majority-black district in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act and Virginia's Democratic legislature wished to eliminate a Republican seat. See Barone and Ujifusa, Almanac of American Politics 1994

I removed it because the explanations given appeared to be somewhat conflicting and, since I don't have the source, I was not able to confirm exactly what it said. Allon Fambrizzi added it back in, in a slightly different form,

Virginia's Democratic legislature wished to eliminate a Republican seat. See Barone and Ujifusa, Almanac of American Politics 1994.

What, exactly, does the source say? Does it say the redistricting was done because of Voting Rights Act concerns, gerrymandering, or some odd combination of both? · j e r s y k o talk · 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The concepts are in tension, but consistent. At the time, the Bush Justice Department interpreted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to say that covered states -- including Virginia -- had to draw majority-minority districts with about 65 percent African-American populations, in rough proportion to the state's black population, for an apportionment to treat blacks fairly under the 14th Amendment. (See the gerrymandering article to treat yourself to a short explanation, or if you just want to short out a brain cell or two.) At the same time, the Democrats in charge of the state legislature wanted to accomplish that in a way that screwed Republicans out of a seat. As someone who had just gotten to Washington, Allen came across to Democratic legislators as an easy target -- so as they created a majority-minority seat, they carved up his district.

I don't have access to the '94 Almanac, but I lived in Allen's district at the time, followed the various intrigues as one of Larry Sabato's campaigns and elections students, and did seminar study on voting rights law at U-Va. Law. The first attempt to cite the almanac -- the one that offers both the VRA and the political gamesmanship explanations -- sums the story up as well as you can in a sentence. For what it's worth, I don't think we risk much by adding that info back. --GGreeneVa 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the explanation. I agree with your conclusion. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Noose

Anyone have a comment on this? An anon is wanting to create the new subsection for the "noose" issue under the "controversies" subsection; my response is "yes, it's a controversal thing to do, but the media coverage of it has not been the same as with the other controversies, so don't think it needs a section of its own." Policy-wise, I think undue weight might be relevant. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine where it is. Controversies should be used for larger chunks of text that break the continuity of flow if left in the middle of an article. A couple of sentences, on the other hand, gives context to a section, making it less a recital of dry facts.

I do wonder, however, if the noose was in the law office he had in 1978-81, or the one in 1998-2000. (I'd check the article myself for clues, but it seems to be limited to subscribers only.) If the first, then the info should be moved to a different section. (And if the latter, why "law and order" when he was doing business development consulting?) John Broughton 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reported User:132.241.246.111 for violations of the 3rr. No fan of George Felix Allen, but also no fan of disruptive and POV behavior. If you want to rant, take it to the appropriate newsgroup/forum/blog. Stirling Newberry 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. And if you really believe you have a valid point, you can always forego the rant and engage in rational discussion on a talk page, too. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Council of Conservative Citizens

Sorry to jump in out of turn, but I reverted that section a couple of days back to fix two problems:

• First, the New York Times endnote only makes sense as a reference to the objective fact that the Council of Conservative Citizens descended from the White Citizens' Councils. This is the lede of the cited NYT article, which I relied on in making that factual statement (emphasis mine):

“ Many Southern politicians become experts at striking a delicate balance between celebrating their region and its heritage without endorsing the uglier aspects of its racial history.

But, as with his remarks last week in praise of Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign for the presidency in 1948, Senator Trent Lott, the incoming majority leader, has walked closer to the most incendiary reaches of Southern history and politics than almost any other major contemporary Southern politician.

Mr. Lott once told the Convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform" and then expounded on those remarks in Southern Partisan, a magazine that celebrates the Confederacy and Southern values and traditions. Mr. Lott, while in Congress, had a column that ran periodically in the magazine of the far-right Council of Conservative Citizens, an outgrowth of the segregationist White Citizens Council, and he has spoken at the group's meetings and met with its leaders in Washington.

”

I know you can only read it in Lexis or Times Select, but I'd be happy to send a Word-formatted copy of the article (downloaded from Lexis) to anyone curious enough to ask. In the alternative, we can boot the NYT reference altogether, if people come to that consensus.

• Second, somehow we cut out the sentence that holds that paragraph together: the one explaining that Lott had gotten himself photographed w/ CCC leaders. I put that back in, because the article as it stood referenced "that snapshot" apropos of nothing.

Glad to respond to any feedback. --GGreeneVa 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

GGreeneVa, you just reverted my edit, giving the justification, "please see the comments and improve the CCC section, rather than reverting it to an incorrect state". I assume you were referring to your comments above, but I don't understand why. What relevance do your comments above have to my edit? And why do you call a quoting The Nation article "incorrect"? -- noosphere 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons: (1) Putting the Nation quote in front of the NYT cite makes the NYT reference no longer make sense; and (2) the relationship of the White Citizens' Councils to the CCC is a matter of objective fact, rather than something the Nation turned up. Just the same, even the NYT called the White Citizens' Councils segregationist, so I updated the section a second ago to make that point. --GGreeneVa 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that makes more sense. I am fine with citing the NYT as support for the claim that the WCC was segregationist. However, The Nation quote you deleted also makes reference to the CCC being "among the largest white supremacist groups", which the wording you put in completely omits. -- noosphere 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

An explanation for my two reverts: we have a legitimate disagreement about this one. My point is that this article is far from balanced or neutral, and if it is not necessary to include directly in this article (i.e., the reader can click on CCC to read all about it), and further contributes to the non-NPOV nature of the article, maybe we can do without it. I would support moving up the sentence regarding the SPLC to the top of the section, as it would give a quick introduction as to what the CCC is all about and would not add any additional negative information (which this article has plenty of). Regarding my second edit, making this mess out of the references section or mentioning the source twice is not appropriate format. Please see footnote 47 in this, as of now, current version of the article (Sen. Allen's remarks spark ire) for a better way to cite. Also, I think it would be helpful for you to be more reserved as opposed to labeling another editor's edits as vandalism, especially since multiple editors have reverted these same edits of yours (Jersyko and I) and another (GGreeneVa) has also done a partial revert, yet none of us has listed rvv in the edit description. Also, I purposely made each revert separately to give the benefit of a proper explanation. Thanks. Ufwuct 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving material off isn't not being NPOV. Arbusto 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But striving for balance is. Ufwuct 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "the policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." So The Nation quote provides background on what the CCC is and where it originated.

This completely conforms with WP:NPOV, in that by quoting The Nation article, we present the view that the CCC is "among the largest white supremacist groups", but we do not assert it (since we are attributing that view to The Nation). This is a fair and objective presentation of that view.

Second, I don't understand your problem with me using the convention of adding the letter "v" to the end of "rv" for every revert I make. This is how I keep track of the number of reverts I make in a day to make sure I don't accidentaly violate the three revert rule. Whether other people use that convention or not in their edit summaries is irrelevant. -- noosphere 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good to keep track to make sure you don't violate the 3RR rule. The vast majority of editors will interpret "rvv" to mean "revert vandalism". To understand why others might get this idea, please see RV (disambiguation) (rv stands for "revert"), and RVV (where rvv is meant to mean "revert vandalism"). Thanks. Ufwuct 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, where do you get the idea that reverting multiple times, or reverting where multiple editors have reverted my edit is vandalism? Anyway, half the people who've reverted me have been anonymous or new users. Most of them are probably the socks of the same user. -- noosphere 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, my above comment clarifies what I meant. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-American mother?

As I said before, this article still appears to have disagreement over its POV nature (or lack thereof). One of the edits I had hoped would be relatively non-controversial apparently was controversial and was was reverted. I cannot understand why a quote from his mother helps the reader understand George Allen better. If the consensus is that this should stay (and if it turns out that we have to vote on every edit) and that this information is essential to the article, then it would seem that this would further delay removing the POV/neutrality tag. Ufwuct 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's quite typical of biographies to provide information on the subject's parents (including information on what the parents thought), if that information available. I personally do think it helps to understand that person. For example, knowing that a subject's parents were fundamentalist Christians might (in some people's eyes) help to explain why the subject might have a sexual dysfunction, or why they hate Christians now that they're adults.

Now, these are purely hypothetical deductions for a purely hypothetical biography subject, but they are the kind of conclusions some people might draw from information given on what this hypothetical subject's parents thought. Generally, I don't think it's too far off the mark to think that the readers of a biography would be interested in anything reasonably relevant to the subject, especially anything that may have influenced them, or that they may have influenced. And it's also quite reasonable to think that what parents think influences their children in some fashion.

In this particular case, the view attributed to Allen's mother sounds like a quite strong one, and would therefore be more likely to have strongly influenced Allen in some fashion. But I am not here to draw conclusions regarding what that influence might have been, or even that there was necessarily an influence. We should leave such analysis to the readers of the article. But they won't be able to make anything of it at all if they don't know it happened. As biographers I think it's appropriate to present this information to the readers and let them make up their own minds. -- noosphere 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but only with proper context (see my comments below), since, as you have noted, it is quite a strong comment that she made. I plan to add that context in the form of these words:

she was ashamed that she had given up her French citizenship to become a citizen of a country she deemed infantile. George Allen, on the other hand has long been enamored of the rural culture of the U.S., particularly that of the South."[4]

This addition of text comes from the same source, so there is no need to find a new one. I don't know if there's any information regarding her continued belief in her previous sentiments (or if she has now disavowed this), but I won't expect to find it in the TNR article. Comments on the wording? Ufwuct 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. But shouldn't it be "enamored with" not "enamored of"? -- noosphere 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've seen both usages (but maybe "enamored of" is antiquated usage), but "enamored with" does sound better. Thanks for catching that. Ufwuct 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, noosphere, if you have comments regarding my proposed changes to the article (or have any other suggestions regarding the POV topic), I would appreciate your input on the talk pages, rather than not participating in the discussion and then reverting my edits. I think this would be preferable for all involved. Thank you. Ufwuct 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am participating in the discussion. Just look at the edit summaries. I give my reasons for what I do, and respond to what the other editors say. -- noosphere 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to go out of my way to make sure my edits are pleasing enough not to be reverted. If you have objections, please tell me before I make edits (as I have telegraphed my moves days in advance) so that we don't get caught in edit wars. Thanks. Ufwuct 02:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could try creating a section clearly outlining each proposed change and starting a straw poll on that change. But even that is no guarantee that you won't be reverts. -- noosphere 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking for guarantees, I'm just looking to improve my odds. I'll try to save the straw polls for when they are necessary, but thanks for the suggestion. Ufwuct 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the context is what is lacking from the quote. Does Allen's mother still feel this way? Is Allen also un-American? Or are his opinions different? The way that the section reads now, seems to imply that he is un-American by association with his mother or by his upbringing. Is this true? I think a little context might be helpful to avoid giving a potentially incorrect impression. Ufwuct 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Great questions. If you find the answers and can cite a reliable source I encourage you to put those answers in the article. But not having those answers is no reason to omit otherwise relevant and well-cited information. -- noosphere 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with the wording proposed above by Ufwuct. Aside from any NPOV concerns, the current blurb about his mother seems out of context without some attempt to tie it to Allen himself. Yes, biographies often discuss the subject's parents. But they almost never discuss them in such a cursory fashion. I'm not saying we need a chapter on his mother here, but we need something more than what we have simply from a stylistic standpoint. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would improve the flow of the article to tie it in with Allen, and have some sort of smooth transition. However, I would not omit relevant and well-sourced claims just because the article's flow might be interrupted. Maybe putting such isolated claims in a "trivia" section of some sort would be more appropriate. -- noosphere 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look back on the passage, it appears as part of the "Family and early years" section in the article, and is placed among the other comments regarding Allen's family. I think it fits fine. -- noosphere 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the link to the source provided does not show the quote in the article. For any that are interested, do a Google search for:

George Allen's mother, infantile, un-American

The link with the same url should appear high on the list (2nd as of 9-6-2006) with the same url as the one listed. I would add the url from the google cache, but I'm not sure if this would be a copyright violation. Ufwuct 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is in the article, it's just not on the first paragraph, which is all non-subscribers get to see. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on Google caches in particular. However, WP:C says, "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." -- noosphere 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys/gals: Thanks for the input. It looks like this guy is one controversial character, so these changes are likely to be contentious. I'll try to make the changes one at a time and look forward to working with you guys/gals soon. Ufwuct 03:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Macaca Controversy

The section is presently the largest in the article. That is undue weight, not to mention duplicating info from the election article. That's why I moved it. We attempted to debate this, but nobody spoke up for several weeks, so I moved it again. Perhaps someone can justify why an election event that will likely just be trimmed significantly after the election belongs here and not the election's article?--Rosicrucian 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm ok with a text move now, as long as it is summarized here. I would not have reverted your edit to the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're correct about the section eventually being shortened (and I think drastically so). The election article should preserve the material for those interested in the controversy. I also think it solves a large put of the undue weight/POV problem. I also agree with Jersyko, that a short mention of a few sentences regarding the controversy is sufficient, but it is also necessary as well. Ufwuct 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I used the main article tag to provide a quick link to the full text.--Rosicrucian 21:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The editor who reverted you, Rosicrucian, has made other questionable edits to this article (see section below), fyi. Perhaps you should just revert the revert. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just did. The reinsertion of the text made a mess of the section anyway.--Rosicrucian 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure: this was actually the original section on the Macaca controversy, and the version in the Virginia Senate election article was the (often somewhat dated) duplicate. Did we make sure to reconcile the two versions before cutting this one?

I agree with the undue weight assessment -- just want to make sure we preserve valid information in the process of correction. --GGreeneVa 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I copied the section over wholecloth before truncating, yes.--Rosicrucian 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks-- GGreeneVa 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Macaca controversy got much more media attention than pretty much anything else in the entire article. So I don't think it's undue weight to emphasize it. In fact, de-emphasizing it would put undue weight on the rest. -- noosphere 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

After the last revert I started the topic up here to establish consensus. Most agreed with my action, so I truncated the section again. You have reverted it back again I see. While I feel the Macaca controversy needs to be chronicled, I ultimately feel it's more germane to the election article than to Allen's article, at least at the level of detail presented. I think it's all too easy to put too much detail into a section because it's a current event, but as far as Allen's article as a whole is concerned, it should not be the largest section in the article.--Rosicrucian 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is about Allen, not about the election. Allen said it, and the controversy was about whether he was a racist for saying it. Whether he'd said it during the runup to the election is of secondary importance. -- noosphere 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Noosphere, it seems that consensus might be developing in favor of truncating the Macaca controversy description here. I am not an Allen fan. I believe that the Macaca controversy must be discussed in detail on Wikipedia. However, I think Rosicrucian's rationale as to why it should be discussed extensively in the election article and summarized here is convincing. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The only argument I've seen for putting it in the election article is that here the space devoted to the controversy places undue weight on it. But that's not convincing, as I've said above, because the media attention it attracted is more than the media attention to the whole rest of the article. So is there another argument? -- noosphere 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...again (with Rosicrucian and Jersyko). The media has a short memory. If anything, Rosicrucian's edits are meant to preserve the material, not delete it. He/she has moved it to a more appropriate article. Ufwuct 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no more appropriate article. Allen said it, therefore it should be in the article on Allen. -- noosphere

It was an event that happened on the campaign trail in the Virginia US Senate election of 2006. Given that other events are explored in more detail in that article than in the candidates' individual articles, I see no reason why the Macaca incident should be any different. To put it into perspective as I've attempted to do above, will this section merit anywhere near this level of detail in Allen's article after the election is over? If not, why should we waste work and words on it in this article when ultimately the only place those words will be preserved is the election article?--Rosicrucian 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not in the business of predicting the future. If some day Allen attracts more media attention than when used the word "macaca", such as if he becomes President, then that incident will deserve more coverage. Until then, the sheer weight of the media coverage alone demands thorough treatment. Yes, Allen might have said it on the campaign trail, but odds are people interested in the "macaca" incident are going to be searching for "George Allen" and not "Virginia US Senate election of 2006". -- noosphere 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If macaca was being excised from this article entirely, I would agree with you. But it's not. The information is summarized in this article with a prominent link to the other article that explains it in more detail. A person searching for information about macaca would find what s/he was looking for. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is not without precedent to move the details of an incident from an article on a U.S. senator to another main article. In Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_incident, a main article is devoted to a scandal. Not to mention that this is probably a much bigger scandal which people do still talk about 37 years later. However, keeping all the details of the incident on Ted Kennedy's article would be undue weight, so it's good that is was moved elsewhere. I also like how is voting record is talked about. Though Kennedy has a much longer political record, I'm confident that we can come up with something similar for George Felix Allen. Ufwuct 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, see the article on Fifth_Quarter:_The_Scrimmage_of_a_Football_Coach's_Daughter. This topic has its own separate article, where additional content is mentioned, and it also includes book reviews. This is appropriate. It would be inappropriate to put all of this material in the main George Felix Allen article (even if the book reviews were left out). Again, the proposed action (to move the bulk of the Macaca controversy to Virginia_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 would not be anything out of the ordinary. Ufwuct 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So far I count myself and three others supporting, and one vehemently in dissent. Is there a compromise that can be reached? I am more than willing to expand the truncated section in my revision with more detail to provide better context, but I really don't think the whole section needs to be in there verbatim. Your thoughts?--Rosicrucian 23:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree still (with you edits and your willingness to compromise). I see that your version explained his actions, and what the word has been interpreted to mean. Your version explained who Sidarth was and why he was at the event. It also explained the net result, as of now (a drop in the polls). The only other thing I could think to add is that some interpreted this as a racist comment (e.g. ..."macaque". Many have considered this a racist comment. (though I trust you to use better wording than I could here.)). I doubt this small compromise will win over any converts though. Cheers. Ufwuct 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait maybe until Saturday to let people voice dissent and/or propose compromises. If there's nothing new, I'll try this again with the revision suggestions you've given.--Rosicrucian 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider my dissent voiced, for the reasons I've given above. No one has offered any new arguments as to why this section should be truncated, and I've already responded to the old ones, so I feel there's really not much more to say than that I oppose shortening the section. -- noosphere 03:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has offered any new arguments as to why this section should be truncated...

There appear to be 8 edits in this section of the talk page between this diff and this diff. A new suggestion (for compromise/improvement of the article) and a few supporting points to the argument were offered.

so I feel there's really not much more to say than that I oppose shortening the section.

You don't have to participate in the discussion and no one is forcing you to, but others are trying to reach a compromise. If you have any suggestions for a compromise, they would be welcomed. I also think that since a consensus seems to be forming, it would be in your best interests (and possibly in the best interests of the article quality) to compromise, rather than having one side emerge as the "winner". Thanks. Ufwuct 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I don't want to exclude anyone, but without any wiggle room except "don't do it" I pretty much have to go with the majority of people in this discussion that are telling me to go ahead.--Rosicrucian 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There continues to be news that relates to the Macaca controversy and there will likely be more as the election approaches. For instance, Allen holds 'ethnic rally': He combats recent stumble by reaching out to diverse group, US senator who called Indian man 'Macaca' decides to turn down community leadership award. With the news continuing to develop, one of the following will happen:

1. The new news will be left out
2. The existing material will be deleted
3. This section will continue to grow in length. The POV tag will never be removed and article quality will deteriorate.
4. The relevant material will be moved to the election article, as was suggested before.

Let's put most this material where it belongs, in its own article where it will get a more thorough treatment.

Other news about the campaign includes: Campaign worker for George Allen avoids trespassing charges, which would also belong in the election article, not this one. I await any comments. Thanks. Ufwuct 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you know my position on this. After nearly a week with fairly strong support, I'm about to move ahead and just do it.--Rosicrucian 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You have my support, and I think the support of others too. I've made my compromise suggestion and can't think of any more material that needs to be in this specific article regarding the incident. Go ahead, or I'll make the chages if you'd prefer. Thanks. Ufwuct 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's done, with the additional requested context included. Feel free to tweak as needed.--Rosicrucian 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish heritage?

The anon who keeps posting that Allen is Jewish in the article posted this message on my talk page:

Jersyko removed a link as supporting evidence due to the link allegedly quoting Wikipedia as a source. This is a disingeuous interpretation of the article at that link: http://www.forward.com/articles/alleged-slur-casts-spotlight-on-senator%E2%80%99s-jewis/

The article does not state or imply that Wikipedia is a source for its information.

The passage in the article which mentions Wikipedia is the following: "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows users to draft and edit the entries, takes Allen’s mother’s Judaism as a given, saying that “Henrietta Lumbroso was a Jewish immigrant of Tunisian/Italian/French background.”"

It is clear from the wording of the above passage that the author intended only to illustrate the phenomenon of Wikipedia users assuming George Allen's Jewish heritage. The Author does not express or imply that her intent is to quote Wikipedia as a source for her information. "The Foward," the newspaper in which the article appears, is a respected publication that has the same standards as similar widely-distributed news sources.

Jersyko's decision to remove the link and the update to the George Allen page was a clear case of wanton and irresponsible editing. Jersyko either did not read the article thoroughly, coming to the false conclusion that it intended its reference to Wikipedia to be considered a source, or he is abusing his privelege to edit and remove other users' posts.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) . 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that an unsourced journal article with "(Jewish?)" in its title establishes that the man is Jewish -- and, in fact, it does not. -- Jibal 12:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the message's incivility, it's just wrong. The source says "it is likely that she’s Jewish by birth, although no acknowledgment of that heritage appears in the memoir." The source then goes on to present evidence that lends credibility to the claim that his mother could be Jewish, but does not definitively prove that she is. And the article does cite Wikipedia as a source, meaning it has problems as a reliable source (I'm not casting doubt on the entire news source's reliability, but only this article's). Nowhere does the article say "Allen is Jewish" or "Allen's mother is Jewish," which is what the anon is saying in his/her edits to this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Regarding edits made by Ma ca ca, Ma ca, Macacaca, and Macaca, I think there is no need to mention his Jewish heritage in the very first sentence of the article. These sources suggest that he is a practicing Presbyterian,[5] [6] [7] [8][9] which is a denomination of Christianity. So regardless of his background, saying he is Jewish in the first sentence is extremely misleading, if not plain wrong. Plus the source is way too POV for the first sentence. If it is needed to substantiate a claim elsewhere in the article, that's fine, but just not in the introduction. Regarding the adjective "controversial", I don't see how this source provides some vital information necessary to prove that he is in fact controversial. It's not as if pollsters asked people "Do you think George Allen is a controversial figure?". Plus, there is plenty of other information presented in the article to demonstrate this aspect of George Allen — that he is controversial (that is by showing in which controversies he has been involved) — almost all of which is presented without awkwardly shoehorning a source into the first sentence. If you would like to add it, I suggest that you should find a way to add it in the section which mentions a drop in his poll numbers due to the Macaca controversy. Ufwuct 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ufwuct. Also, note that any information not sourced to reliable sources can be removed from an ariticle on a living person per an exception to WP:3RR. A political blog is not a reliable source to demonstrate Allen's Jewishness. I've requested protection for the article, fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The sudden emergence of a sockfarm whose edits are identical to User:169.253.4.21 is a little disturbing, and likely could be considered disruption.--Rosicrucian 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that but have delayed labeling that user a sockpuppet, as it wasn't as quite blatantly obvious. Ufwuct 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I hypothesized on Jersyko's talk page, I think this is a very experienced Wikipedian (see the oldest edits).[10] Ufwuct 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's likely, I think. He recently was admonished if it was wise to edit using an IP connected to a state department computer, and suddenly there's not one of him but three.--Rosicrucian 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"...state department computer..." — This is news to me. Who admonished him/her? The state department? ;) Or Wikipedia? Ufwuct 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's on his talkpage. [11]--Rosicrucian 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's often interesting to see where the anons are coming in from. There is a frequent negative-editor on Jim Webb's page coming from some national "stone" organization. I guess Webb isn't popular among rock crushers. :) --StuffOfInterest 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've formally organized them under a single sock category. I've left it as suspected for now though, as they haven't proven abusive yet.--Rosicrucian 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has been put under sprotect as a result -- how abusive does it have to get? -- Jibal 12:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At first I was going to say that since these socks are registered the sprotect couldn't have been directed at them. However I suppose it would stop them, given that they're newly registered. Upon further examination they also seem to have been created specifically to circumvent 3RR and bait regular editors on this article into violating 3RR.--Rosicrucian 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All we really need here are Wiki's basic policies. Per the manual of style, ethnicity/religion isn't mentioned in the header anyway, so even if he was 100% Jewish the article shouldn't start with "George Allen is a Jewish etc." Ethnicity/religion goes under "Early life", I guess, which currently has bits and pieces on his ancestry. The Forward does pass WP:RS, and no, it doesn't use Wikipedia as a source, but just mentions that Wikipedia seems to have assumed his mother is Jewish and stated it as fact (which we shouldn't have done). So, we could mention "it has been speculated by source X that Allen's mother is of Jewish ancestry", using the Forward as a source. Mad Jack 20:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is "biased and slanted", should be deleted

The article on George Allen is the most biased and slanted Wikipedia article I've ever seen.

It should be deleted for the credibility of Wikipedia itself. 20:25, 9 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk • contribs)

Not very constructive unless you can give examples.--Rosicrucian 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several of us working to improve the article, rather than delete it altogether. An all-or-nothing attitude, which has been demonstrated by some editors to this article is less than helpful. Ufwuct 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what is biased and offer ways to improve the article. That is more constructive than attacks on wikipedia as a whole. Arbusto 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Both sides have claimed...

I have removed the assertion that both sides have claimed that the photo of Sidarth supports their position. I requested a source (that both "sides" made this assertion) on August 17. I did a quick google search before added the request for a source and couldn't find anything about Webb's campaign or Sidarth claiming that that photo supported their case (although Sidarth had claimed before that he had a mullet). Since no one else has been able to come up with a source in that time, I changed the wording, removing the assertion that Sidarth's "side" had claimed that the photo backed up his previous assertion.

Also, I changed the wording to reflect that this photo of him shows something quite the opposite of what most people would consider a mullet. A mullet (see pictures) is usually short in the front (and sometimes shorter on the sides), combined with longer hair at the bottom and the usually at the sides. A mohawk, on other hand, is shaved on the sides (which Sidarth's hairstyle shows) and longer in the middle of the head, usually from the forehead all the way to the neck (which Sidarth's hairstyle shows). Usually, the hair in the middle of the head sticks up in a Mohawk. Sidarth's does not. This is why I chose not to call it a mohawk, but describe it as not typical of a mullet.

I hope that my changes are not reverted, despite waiting 3 1/2 weeks for a source (and being open to discussion the whole time), and explaining my reasons for changes here. Please let me know if you have comments (here). Thanks. Ufwuct 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I was about to mirror it on the Virginia election article, but I see you already have.--Rosicrucian 18:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN?

I don't see how the comment violates WP:OWN. It seems appropriate to warn editors that the passage is not intended to be a full account of the event, and that updates are better served being placed on a different article.--Rosicrucian 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as an OWN issue either, but at the same time I don't see the comment helping. People intent on adding more in will ignore the "main" template and add in anyway. The same thing happens to the conspiracy theories section of the 9/11 attacks article almost daily. Best you can do is try to move material over to the election article whenever you see it or delete the new additions if they are already covered in the election article. --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I might edit it back in but a bit less strongly worded.--Rosicrucian 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And now I have. Took out the all-caps and just used it as a comment to remind editors that there is more content, it's just been moved.--Rosicrucian 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All caps were not intended to be emphatic, but just to show that it was not part of the rest of the text. I've seen very similar notes in the page source before (when there was no more effective way to communicate the message) and notes at the top of talk pages (e.g., "please peruse the talk pages before"...), even in featured articles. The comment was not intended to be directed at or even read by conspiracy theorists or those extremely committed to add their personal factoids or blurbs. Anyway, thanks for rewriting the comment. Ufwuct 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I simply rephrased it to be less a "edit this way" notice and more a "you might want to check here if you think something's missing" comment. I can appreciate the spirit it was intended in, and as it's worded now it'd be hard to nix it for WP:OWN again.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are only required to follow Wikipedia policies, not injunctions from other Wikipedia users. That's why the presence of such injunctions were a violation of WP:OWN. The new wording just seems reduntant, as there's a link to the Virginia United States Senate election, 2006 article in the body of the George Allen article anyway. But, as you say, it doesn't violate WP:OWN, and I have no problem with it. -- noosphere 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)