Talk:Allen West (politician)/Archive 1

New page name
I disagree with the new name of this page ... West did not technically resign, he was allowed to retire after being fined. Resigned implies (in the military at least) that he got out prior to retirement eligibility. If you felt the need to rename the page, it would be better named Allen West (politician, retired U.S. colonel) (section)Hardnfast (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it. Justmeherenow (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to go ... a very reasonable compromise. Hardnfast (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ends-Justify-the-Means trial for a military man
Remember when Sean Connery shot the dead guy through the head in the Untouchables to get the bookie to talk?

My question is: "did West actually save lives given his reputable interrogation?" if there is proof that he saved lives based upon the info he got out of the cop, then his actions were justified (in terms of Ends-justifies-the-Means logic). If there isn't proof that he saved lives, then viceversa.

The moral is, people shouldn't be rewarded for losing even though they have good intentions.

Given one scenario, West and his men would've "lost" if they made that cop more humiliated than he's ever been in his life by harshly interrogating him into filling his pants and beating him senselessly just to get useless information or even lies out of him. West and his men would've "won" if they got the cop to give them useful, true information that led to the saving of lives (and possible humiliations or pants-fillings) of fellow soliders.

Take the interrogation scene from Reservoir Dogs for example "If you beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the G0dd@mned Chicago fire now that don't neccessarily make it F*#&in so!" Actions are justified by the results for a military man.--Sage Veritas (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't This Evidence of Political Correctness in Iraq?
Isn't this controversy yet more proof that Political Correctness rules the day in Iraq? Had WW II been fought in anything remotely approaching this sort of delicate, PC manner, could the US have achieved its goals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.74 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In a word? No.Shabeki (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No to the first or second question? They are asking opposite things. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 07:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, no to the idea that this is political correctness. The idea that we should suspend basic human rights in a war based on lies is ludicrous. Especially since in West's situation, it was found that the person interrogated was found to have no call for West's conduct. The Army sets these protocols for a reason. They are not barbarians. Allen West clearly overstepped his boundaries. And since then, he has developed a reputation for being an Islamophobic bigot by saying that the Qur'an promotes terrorism. This is not political correctness. These are facts.69.113.139.131 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't anyone post his SSN!
Klein has already mailed it out to enough people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NY Times link
The link to the NY Times article is bad, and I can't find any record of it by searching the NY Times website. Meaning, either they pulled it, or it never existed. Or, I guess, an honest mistake somewhere. Is there any way to confirm this article was actually ever printed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.148.144 (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A search of the NYT archive returned an updated link. I'll repair the cite. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excess details of military career and military awards
Per WP:UNDUE, neutrality of an article includes giving appropriate weight (space) to different information. By that standard, there is excess details of West's military career and military awards. Only a few of the awards, at most, are important; only a few of the military assignments have - I'm sure - been mentioned in important news articles. These both really need to be trimmed back - the article reads like Mr. West's resume, not like a Wikipedia article, which is intended to provide an overview. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just noticing the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the military to really tease out what is notable and what isn't. Maybe somebody with a better knowledge of the subject can take a look? Arbor832466 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While some of the more common awards might be legitimately trimmed, I don't see any WP:UNDUE as to the summation of his 20 year military career. Compare, for example, Joe Sestak's entry. Perhaps (like Sestak's) the awards and decorations section might be eliminated and incorporated into his military career section.
 * However, if you want to consider WP:UNDUE, how about the amount of space dedicated to his Article 32 hearing? Is that also appropriate? Just askin'. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think too many awards. More should be about his current status.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HypatiaX (talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbor - I think the bio that Jake pointed to, Joe Sestak, is helpful here - for Sestak, only the personal awards are listed, while for West, both personal and non-personal awards are listed. By non-personal, I mean that no specific individual actions resulted in the award - an individual simply was in a unit, or in a theater of operations, or similar.  (The second paragraph of West's awards are all non-personal, as is the Valorous Unit Award in the first paragraph.)


 * Jake - one way to measure WP:UNDUE is whether things have been mentioned in news articles, not just on a person's campaign website. I doubt that any news article has given coverage to the awards, simply because these are pretty standard for any Army LTC in a combat arms branch. More to the point, I agree that Joe Sestak's bio is a good model here.


 * Regarding the career description, Joe Sestak's article describes his 31-year career, in which he ended up as a 3-star admiral, in a total of 352 words. By contrast, the 20 years of West's career currently are described in 273 words.  (Sestak's first 20 years?  148 words.)  So, comparatively, West's career description (excepting awards) should be reduced by about 40%.


 * And regarding the Article 32 hearing, I agree that this takes up too much space in the article - I think reducing it by half would be a good target. I suggest someone start a new section on this page, about the matter; I'd guess that the best way to move things forward would be for someone to take a shot at a rewrite, putting it, say, at Talk:Allen West (politician)/Article32-draft1.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Are current polling results appropriate in a BLP?
A simple question (and I don't particularly care one way or the other), but are polling results (which are inherently non-static) appropriate fare for a BLP? Shouldn't WP:NOTNEWS govern here with this type of content more appropriate to Wikinews? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that polls/ratings/etc don't belong in a BLP unless they've had some impact beyond just existing. Say, for example, a candidate got some kind of recognition from the national party after polls showed her within 5 points of her opponent, or if a candidate dropped out of a race after polls showed him trailing badly, then I'd say yeah, include it. But otherwise, it doesn't belong. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's point out that the comments of Arbor above are her OPINION. Polling/ratings, etc are appropriate and can be included.  My experience is that editors who like a candidate that is winning thinks the polls, etc are great except when their candidate is losing and then suddenly they are "bad".  But at any rate there is NO rule that polls and ratings cannot be included in a biography.  And that's all there is to that non-debatable point.--InaMaka (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You take incivility to a new level, InaMaka. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Polls are invariably not noteworthy, as they date and have no real long term value. What I find is the additions and people that add them are no longer interested after the election is over and then I remove them all then, when the short-termers and the wannabe interns have gone. While they are fixated, I usually let them add one just to keep them quiet and remove all the less noteworthy ones. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia? Ha.
So, I add things to Wikipedia but people go and take it out. Nice community you have, huh? So much for "the community anyone can edit". If you're going to be biased, just say so. I guess putting political positions on a politicians page is out of the question? Quit taking yourself so seriously, anyway. You act like this place is a serious research driven encyclopedia when it's not. It's a blog/forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.244.60 (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your recent contributions, and your sources do not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. As a person who is concerned with writing a serious, research-driven encyclopedia, I'm sure you'll agree that encyclopedia articles should not get their information from blogs. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, note that "anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can put their own point of view in any article". Frank  &#124;  talk  17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The guy who started this section has a repeated history of vandalism. Someone should consider blocking him. Mikist4 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The user "Tippx" removes things clearly cited, clearly not even "POV's" but just blatant facts about Wests life
Are you threatened just by facts like "West's dad served in WWII, his brother fought in Vietnam, his mom was a civilian marine employee"? LOL, I find that comedic and it cracks me up that something that little would bother you. I'm not even a big West fan. I just know he's rose up a bit in notoriety and people are always curious about facts about high profile people and their background so I've contributed facts about his Early Life. I actually created the early life section. There wasn't any info on it when I first read his page. Quit being ridiculous and leave the silly info on the page. If you're a liberal who hates West, that's fine, you're not the only one but if you think deleting family facts from his Wikipedia page is going to "bring him down", then LOL. You must be off your rocker. Most people already know what I listed anyway because he mentions it, it seems, quite frequently. Except maybe the fact his mom was a civilian marine employee. Is that little fact going to cause the world to crown West the "King of the Earth"? all because his mom helped out the marines? LOL And the little fact about his exit from the military at the top of the page isn't necessary and you know it. There's a huge section clearly all over it at the bottom. Don't worry, if you're trying to get people to dislike him for that, I'm sure they won't miss that entire section. LOL, K, it's obvious you've got something against the man. I'm not his biggest fan myself but facts about his family are facts. And you need to leave them there.(unsigned comment by User:Dchip12 - Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Simply because something is a fact and is cited doesn't mean it merits inclusion in an article. I never said the facts about his family arent true, I removed them because they are not notable. This is an article about Allen West, not a campaign advert or family tree.
 * As for the inclusion of notes of his exit from the military, That is what the introduction of the article is for. It sets up the article, and provides brief facts about his life that are then elaborated further down in the article. Simply because it is noted later on doesnt mean it should not be noted in the intro. Would it be right for the introduction to Richard Nixon to exclude all mentions of Watergate, and just say Nixon decided to retire one day in 1974? It is stated that he was involved in actions that were possible illegal later in the article, Right? While it is true that West and Nixon both retired from their fields, Leaving out information about the circumstances that led them to do so would be a lie of omission. Do you remember writing a five paragraph essay with a three part thesis while in school? What kind of grade do you think you would get if you just left out the intro and conclusion, since they do just say the same things as the middle 3 paragraphs? Not a whole lot of people read an article start to finish, The introduction is there so that they can quickly read it and have a decent understanding of the topic. For more precedent on intros, Look up Ted Kennedy (Which notes the Chappaquiddick incident in the intro then elaborates in the body). On Bill Clinton's page, The Lewinsky scandal is noted in the intro, then elaborated on in the body. Even Ted Stevens, who was ultimately acquitted, has mention of his corruption trial.
 * As a note for the future, Placing four Tildes(~) after your contribution to a talk page signs your username (After this Im just typing four ~) Tippx (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Leaving out information about the circumstances that led them to do so would be a lie of omission." LOL. I have to give you credit. You do go to extreme lengths attempting to come up with preposterous excuses that sound as if they are applicable. Uh, leaving out the circumstances? There is a WHOLE section, the LARGEST SECTION of the entire article, about what led to West's retirement. And uh, as far as "Would it be right for the introduction to Richard Nixon to exclude all mentions of Watergate, and just say Nixon decided to retire one day in 1974?". Uh, I don't recall it saying West just decided retired at the top of the article. Sorry bud, you're not dealing with high school dropouts here. It's pretty easy to see through rubbish. Dchip12 (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Warning old guy making first wiki entry and new to the culture of contributors. IMO Anyone trying to assess a new member of congress is going to want to know a little about the member's family background to try to get a handle on the congressperson's world view and gives context to his views.  It is important to say if the grandfather was a dockworker, coal miner, or WWII vet.  Just because a campaign may have made a big deal of it is not a reason to ignore it.  The key principles in looking at a campaign talking point is "did they get the facts right" and "did they tell the whole story."  E.g., the campaign says the grandfather was a "farmer" but he was really a multimillionaire playing the gentleman farmer.  Please don't remove the section, rather think about why folks will want to review the article. VirginiaJim1775 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining us on Wikipedia. One thing that you may be unaware of is that Wikipedia's job is not to provide a place for people to "assess a new member of congress".  Our purpose is to provide an encyclopedia article about the subjects.  As such, some information that some people might "want" will not appear (in fact, by definition, a lot of information won't appear).  As editors we have to judge what is necessary to provide an overall explanation of the subject, in broad strokes, based on what makes the subject notable.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. I have been using Wikipedia for some time and believe that the phrase we are discussing is a broad brush and family background "makes the subject". Usability is a valid criteria for judging an encyclopedia article. Many, many articles contain information to "assess" things, from video games to statistical methods. But using your criteria the comments should stay as like information is included in many like articles. For example, I looked at Senator Edward Kennedy's article and it had the following "Kennedy was born in St. Margaret's Hospital on February 22, 1932 in the Dorchester section of Boston, Massachusetts, the youngest of nine children of Rose Fitzgerald and Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., who were members of prominent Irish-American families in Boston[1] and who constituted one of the wealthiest families in the nation.[2]" Same sort of background. Much more detail. Even more when you consider that Joseph Kennedy has his own article. For a short article, the burden of argument should be on the person who wants to remove any neutral worded, true information that tells more on the subject not on the person who wants to put it in. If there was an interesting, true story about this guy wrestling a bear that helps shed light on how he works with his fellow congressmen, it deserves to remain. Even if his campaign made a big deal about it and wrote a jingle. Heck there should be a link to the jingle. Bits are cheap.98.218.39.145 (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, in reference to Kennedy, the difference is that a large part of what makes Kennedy important/famous is his connection to one of the most "famous"/"prominent" families in U.S. politics. I, personally, still wouldn't use quite so much detail (like the hospital he was born in), but I'd have to discuss it with other editors of that page.  Second, where you say "the burden of argument" is on the person who wants to remove the info does not match standard Wikipedia editing policy.  In fact, all edits are done on a "consensus" basis.  So, if someone adds something new to an article, and someone else objects, we come back to the talk page, and discuss it, until we achieve consensus.  In doubt, though, WP:BLP says we should err on the side of leaving out personal information not strictly necessary to describe the individual.  And on your last points, you're actually wrong about the way Wikipedia works.  While it's true that "bits are cheap", we have policies that govern what can and cannot be in articles.  In cases where we don't have policies, its up to the discretion of editors to form a consensus about what should be in. Yes, theoretically, all of our articles could be hundreds of "pages" long, but that would actually be detrimental, because it would make it nearly impossible to find the most useful information; furthermore, it wouldn't be encyclopedic.  Lastly, even external links are governed by a guideline (WP:EL).
 * Having said all that, looking back at the history, I can't see specifically what it was you tried to add that was removed. Can you point to that information, or explain here again what that information was? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Military career section
I am tempted to remove all this section is uncited claims and the only bit cited is to a not wiki reliable bloggy site with the subjects own claims - as in according to the subject. This whole section does not assert any independent notability. This link, is it being used to cite the whole section? Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree, That link shouldn't be used as a source on any article. However, the section is written with a neutral POV and is notable, so I Would think its best to keep the information in the section, as long as someone can find another source for each individual claim made in the section. Tippx (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is actually only wiki notable if there are WP:RS supporting and reporting it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dchip12
Please start explaining your edits and telling us why the careers of his relatives merit inclusion. The democracy project, which is the only source cited, would fall under WP:SPS and cannot be used as a source. As for the opening, what you wrote contains a run-on sentence in the second paragraph. The previous opening was better written, and you did not explain why it was changed. Tippx (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC
 * Hey bud, I'm not gonna waste too much time on you. You think we're naive and don't know what you're doing. I didn't follow West TOO MUCH and am not even a big supporter of his BUT you obviously WERE a fan of West's opponent and hate his family being mentioned. You must have took his win pretty hard, huh? This is why I don't get too into politics. It can make you do the crazy ridiculous things as you're doing. But His DAD, BROTHER, and NEPHEW merit inclusion because it's mentioned he's the 3rd of 4 generations in the military and it's legitimate to note single facts about the other generations service.
 * Why is that such a threat to you? Why is West such a threat to you? Why is what his daddy, brother, and nephew have done such a threat to you? Why does it bother you so much? What did West do to you?
 * You initially tried to justify ur psycho editing by claiming it was "my POV" when cleary NOTHING was my "POV". They were all FACTS. MAYBE the only one that couldn't qualify as a FACT was "West knew he was destined to be in the military". But that wasn't ME saying that. That was what the article said and the writer of that article got that from West. And it's YOUR opinion that the other opening version was better. I included more details while also combining and/or briefing sentences. And you know dang well you're not editing it because Wk's "flowed better"... LOL, cut the crap. If I had gone into great detail about his army exit, you may have left it.
 * Quit looking for asinine excuses to mess with stuff and get a life. You've been told already by another user to quit being disruptive on my talk page and looking into your history you've got a lovely history of pissing people off and messing with pages for no valid reason other than you like or dislike the subject and want I guess the page steered in a certain direction
 * The mid-term elections are long over Tippx. You trolling West's page isn't going to do anything. Go get some friends.
 * Dchip12 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Detainee incident & retirement
Because this article comes under the Military history WikiProject I've posted a note about the current dispute on WT:MILHIST. It seems to me that the current dispute can be resolved by recognising that it's not Wikipedia's purpose to espouse any particular viewpoint - positive or negative - about its subjects. An article lede (from WP:LEDE) is supposed to be a potted summary of the entire article; as a rule of thumb, if the rest of the article was deleted and only the lede remained, it should still be possible for a reader to get all the main points about the article subject from it (although obviously not the detail).

Currently the lede is too brief to do this job properly, which perhaps gives the impression that mentioning the detainee incident so prominently is giving undue focus to one particular event. As a reliably sourced major event in his life it obviously should be mentioned, but in the context of the rest of his career. Expanding the lead would solve this problem. As to how it's mentioned, using the term "Forced to retire" is problematic. It's not supported by either the article text or, more importantly, the source used, which makes no causal link between the incident and his retirement. EyeSerene talk 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not in WP:MILHIST, but I think the article reads correctly right now (the phrase "retired after investigation into..."). You cannot factually state that it was due to pressure, that it was to preserve his benefits, because he was afraid of being convicted, or any other reason.  All we know, factually, is that he was under investigation and, during that investigation, retired.  Unless there's something clearer in some other citation than the one currently being used (like if he said "I retired at this point because..."). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the version that is currently in place, the one that limits itself to the facts that can be verified in the available sources, is the preferable version of the article right now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lede altogether
First of all, let my say I apologize for what was described as an "uncivil" debate between the user "Tippx" and myself. I'm willing to work this thing out like mature adults if he is. But the attitude of "my way or the high way" comes and it's going to go nowhere and probably end the same.

First of all, I have to say I agree 100% EyeSerene talk with your assessment of "Currently the lede is too brief to do this job properly, which perhaps gives the impression that mentioning the detainee incident so prominently is giving undue focus to one particular event". That's exactly the impression I got. I felt Tippx was trying to put too much emphasizes on something controversial partly b/c at the same time, he insisted a couple facts in the Early Life section were "overwhelmingly positive" as he stated. But forget the Early Life section for now.

Lets talk about improving the Lede section because I agree it does need improving. It's just a bunch of short complete sentences. Which is why if you look at my edited version, I combined some to make it flow while also adding in diminutive additional facts but at the same time. I didn't make one fact override the other. I listed basically the Key things about West's career and that was it. Nothing was more emphasized. And I actually, as you can see, came to agree that West's exit from the military did need to be mentioned but to a certain degree. While that is a Key thing in West's career, it's one of many. I listed he won this past election but also lost his first election; Listed after he retired, the jobs he took up before his first bid for election; And I did it all in chronological order. Felt it was balanced, cited, and edited well. But ofcourse, the user reverted it and his only explanation was a different one "sounded better".

But off of that, and onto how we can get it right...

First of all, I'll be clear... It's legitimate and cogent, and I'm going to insert back, the fact that former Congressman Josiah Wall was the last black Florida Congressman and also the last EXACT YEAR is substituted for "In November 2010 he was elected as the first African-American Republican Congressman from Florida since the 1870s.". It's not that much more lengthy and listing the exact year and the last person, who indeed was the last black Rep from Florida, I feel does no harm and doesn't for a sec take a viewer completely out of the main subject. And also, justified to just say in the "2010 Mid-term election" rather than "November 2010". Everyone knows our elections are in November but when a reader 15 years from now may be reading, the fact it says mid-terms will immediately thwart the curiosity of whether this subject's election triumph was in a Presidential Election year or Mid-Term year.

And it also it's rational to just put he's "Republican Representative-elect....." rather than " "He's Representative-elect from Florida....." and the "He is a member of the Republican Party". Those can EASILY and rationally be combined. No requisite for deliberation there.

As far as what Qwyrxian (talk) and FisherQueen(talk contribs) say about the interrogation incident. Qwurxian, your statement of "you cannot factually state that it was due to pressure, that it was to preserve his benefits, because he was afraid of being convicted, or any other reason....."...... I guess one would feel we need an exact statement from West's mouth as to EXACTLY WHY then OK, I guess find a statement by him saying WHY, but one would assume it was at least two if not all three of what you mentioned by simple coherence. We'll leave that open.

And we'll leave else to be be dealt with.

And we can figure out how to combine and get the right Lede we're looking for as well as anything else.

Dchip12 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not speculate--that's original research. I can imagine several dozen reasons why he retired when he did.  The fact that one is more likely than the rest is irrelevant.  If we have a source, we can reference that source, attributing the source if it's not a fact but an opinion.  As for the lead overall...it's a little choppy, but not terrible.  Can you point to the diff or just quote here your proposed lead, so that we know which one you're referring to?  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine about the reference source as to exactly WHY he retired. As for the Lede. I did what seemed manifest and practical. Instead of "He's a Rep-elect" and then a "He's a member of the Repub party". Just put "he's a Repub Rep-elect". Simple.  And just the couple supplementary facts about who the last black Florida Rep was and the exact year without it being lengthy or taking away from the main subject.  That was it


 * Dchip12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC).
 * ALSO, my last edit was the one right before the user "Dayewalker" AKA "Tippx" came in and edited back to the exact version that Tippx reverted it back to about 4 or 5 times. It was this.....


 * Allen B. West (born February 7, 1961) is a Republican U.S. Representative-elect for FL's 22nd congressional district and a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel.


 * Forced to retire from the Army following a controversial interrogation incident in Iraq in 2003, Congressman-elect West has also briefly taught high school and served as a civilian adviser in Afghanistan. With his successful campaign in the 2010 mid-terms, after an unsuccessful bid in 2008, he will be the first African-American Republican Congressman from Florida since Josiah T. Walls in 1876.


 * Seems balanced. Nothings enhanced. Brief summary. Mostly his career and some small essentials with it. Flows coordinately on through. Only divergence seems the statement "Forced to retire" as you guys mentioned but we can reword that somehow. That's no problem.


 * Whatta ya think Qwyrxian (talk)?


 * Dchip12 (talk)

What I meant by my edits
Given the situation that erupted last night over this, I feel its necessary to tell the problems I had with the way the page was written. Im not going over what happened again, or even addressing allegations of sock puppetry, Im done with that.

I was reading up on the freshmen in congress, and that is how I came across Allen West. I live in New Jersey, and did not follow his race. I was reading his military history, and noticed that the events of his interrogation were absent from the LEDE, so I quickly added them by copying and pasting a line from later in the article. It didnt fit well, and the sentence needed to be improved, but a brief mention of what led to his retirement was needed, and im glad that it was revised and is included in the current edit. Most of the other problems I had, like the inclusion of his families military history in the early life section, and the run on sentence in the lede, have been fixed.

Apart from a minor edit about wording (possessive pronoun before college degree in early life section), I am finished with this page. --Tippx (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

POV: Iraq Interrogation Incident
The section on the Iraq interrogation incident is grossly inadequate compared to the cited sources. All it says is that he shot his gun near the policeman. What it doesn't say is that he allowed his subordinates to beat the policeman on the head and body, and threatened to kill him. Until this is fixed, I'm slapping on a POV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.98.162 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then, go ahead and fix it.Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This could be a valid point; but the POV tag at the top of the article is too broad. I am changing it to better reflect the complaint - POV of one section. KeptSouth (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement about notability of wife's degrees
While I thought the details of where West's wife earned her advanced degrees is trivial and not relevant to the article, apparently some other editors disagree. Since West's wife does not meet the criteria for notability and since the article is about Allen West, why should it mention from which institutions his wife earned her degrees? (I don't even think his wife's education is relevant but am willing to let that factoid slide.) Am I missing something or should this detail be removed from the article?Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My humblest apologies—I reacted too quickly to the removal based on past problems with this article, and did, in fact, think you were removing where Allen West got his degrees. Complete failure on my part.  Having said that, I really don't care whether or not we mention where his wife got her degrees; it's a very borderline inclusion, but not obviously trivial to me either.  Does anyone else care either way? Wkharrisjr, if no one comments in the next day or so, I'll go back and remove it myself so that it doesn't look like you edit warring.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks!Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it is not trivial. Whether she is notable on her own or not is not an issue because she is being mentioned in an article about her husband. This is standard practice throughout Wikipedia.  I don't find the mention of her education to be trivial.--Corbridge (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a citation for the relevant, on-topic concerning his wife.--Corbridge (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While I can understand why his wife's educational degrees could be considered non-trivial, the exact institutions from which she received her degrees borders on minutia; the article is already in danger of becoming bloated. If this level of information is important, she should have her own article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Corbridge: you say this is "standard practice", but can you give any examples? I don't recall seeing other examples like this, but, then again, it's not the sort of thing that would stick in my memory, I think.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems extremely trivial to me, as well. Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is even a question. West's wife is not notable enough to have her own article, and her degrees aren't relevant to his notability (military, Congress) in any way, so they shouldn't be included. I'm somewhat baffled by why anyone would want them in there. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbor, I understand your concerns, but don't you think that your comment above is a little over the top? (I'm somewhat baffled by why anyone would want them in there.) And, you also stated in the edit summary "Come on." As the great bard stated, "The lady doth protest too much."  There is tons of personal information in bios throughout Wikipedia. Why the overreaction concerning Lt.Col. West? His article is just another bio. There are editors who dedicate whole sections of hundreds of bios to mentions of individuals in cartoons and TV shows.  In the Bob Dole article references to The Simpsons, South Park, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and Saturday Night Live among others. I have reviewed your work and I don't see you working to remove all of the Family Guy lists throughout Wikipedia. The concern seems to be overblown.  There is no brightline on what personal info is notable or not notable. You reverted by attempt to remove the two references to Kristi Noem's hobby of hunting, but you think a reference to West's distinguished wife background is over the top. Wikipedia chocked full of information about spouses. Your concern about a little bit of information about West's wife is just overblown.--Corbridge (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, a couple of things. First, Corbridge, your interpretation of my motivation, fascinating though it may be, doesn't shed any light on how we can improve this or any other article, so let's just leave it aside for the moment. Also, I'm not sure I understand why Family Guy references in the Bob Dole article are relevant to whether West's wife's degrees belong in his article. Finally, I supported including Noem's interest in hunting because it is related to and illuminates her position on gun control/gun rights. West's interest in SCUBA and distance running doesn't seem relevant to his notability. And of course, any discussion of West's interest in motorcycles should include his involvement with the Outlaws Motorcycle Club . Arbor832466 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles stuffed with trivia! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Nevertheless, just because its in other articles doesn't justify its use- we should seek to make improvements as we come across them.

Getting back to the question about West's wife's degrees, a simple bright line would be- are they of and by themselves notable? Yes, the information might be published somewhere, but does that information pass any notability test- "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." IMHO, she fails this criteria and thus specifics about her degrees are not relevant.Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is quite good, as far as it goes. You stopped short. I agree with everything except for the fact that there have been multiple published secondary sources which are reliable that refer to Dr. West and her job and her academic degrees.--Corbridge (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case, if you contend she is notable, she should have a separate Wiki article and could be linked to this article. For instance, the article about President Obama mentions that Michelle is his wife but details about her background, including her advanced degrees and alma maters, are detailed in her separate article.Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I never stated that she is notable. But that is not relevant to this discussion either. There are facts in articles about spouses all of the time and the spouse is not notable by themselves.  As a matter of fact Wikipedia has a policy to delete articles about non-notable people and then merge the article information into the article about the notable family member, e.g., Al Gore, III. So the notability argument put forward by you and Arbor are clearly off topic.--Corbridge (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't find the "everybody else is doing it" line of reasoning to be sufficient justification to include trivia about West's wife that isn't directly related to HIS notability, or a some of West's random likes and dislikes, in an encyclopedia. Should we list his favorite color too? Arbor832466 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the obligatory mention of WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Secondly, the issue here is solely the Allan West article, and digging though the contributions of others and speculating on their motives is out of bounds. Please limit your comments to the issues at hand and not speculating or examining other editors. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is essentially, I believe, a discretionary issue. Spouses, their jobs, and their positions are right on the borderline between trivia and relevant.  I personally don't mind if we mention here what his wife's degree is in, or her profession if it is substantiated.  The issue of her degrees isn't completely "necessary" for an encyclopedic treatment of Allen West, but it's not totally unreasonable, either.   I don't think we need to know where she got her degree.  In addition, West's hobbies certainly not belong, unless they are somehow relevant to what makes him notable. So, for example, if he had been known for scuba-related legislation, then that would be relevant, or if he had been featured on some sort of "Celebrity scuba divers" show, then that would also be relevant.  If it's just what he does in his spare time, then it shouldn't be in the article. For any given biographical article, especially for politicians (who get intense media coverage during their campaigns), there will be thousands of facts known about the person that do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic treatment of that person.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it is a discretionary issue. So the comment that "I'm somewhat baffled by why anyone would want them in there" is truly overblown and I consider it an attempt to speculate on my motives, which is out of bounds. Also, the argument that because Dr. Angela West is "non-notable" is just off the topic, a red herring if you will. There clearly is an interest in Congressman West's private life and by extension his wife's private life and that's all there is to it.  It is as simple as that and there does not need to be some agreement on notability tied to West's military life, etc. Now, of course, there is personal information can be taken too far and Arbor's sarcastic suggestion about West's favorite color does validly point out an example that is clearly over the line. However, there are some items that have been added that are not unreasonable additions.  And I find the attempt to just kill everything personal about Congressman West and his wife, Dr. West is just plain overkill.--Corbridge (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to be clear: his church and his hobbies must go. This is not encyclopedic information. We don't provide information because there is "interest in his private life."  That's not our job--we are writing an encyclopedic treatment of a him, not a biography, life story, or introspective piece.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to be clear: not everything about his personal life is not going to be removed. This is a style question only stripping ALL personal info about him is way, way overblown and unreasonable considering that there is personal info on just about all of the other politicians. It is a style issue only and there is not a hard and fast rule.  Even Gamaliel pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is not, by any means a hard and fast rule. Remember, Jimbo stated that the first rule is that there is no rules.--Corbridge (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is the "hard and fast rule" on how Wikipedia works, and that's what we're determining on this talk page. And your impression of "no rules" is not at all correct. Dayewalker (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally agree. So let me point out that based upon this discussion I don't think that there is absolutely no consensus to remove every single thing concerning West's private life. Just like there is absolutely no consensus to remove all of the references to Obama's predilection to play basketball. There is no consensus to remove all references to the way that he met Michelle, etc. Oh, as to "no rules" I'm right. Yeah, I know that my response was short, just as short as your argument to me.--Corbridge (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) No, IAR is not applicable here. This isn't a policy error that should be ignored to improve an article. And whether or not you accept a consensus, one exists that his wife's degrees are not relevant to this article. All of these other side discussions are irrelevant to the original question, and shouldn't muddy the waters on a clear consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a consensus developing discussion with you here. You just say there is a consensus and I say there isn't. Also, I never stated that I would not "accept" a consensus if there is one. You are merely claiming that I stated that, which of course I didn't. What I did say and I will say it again there is no consensus here. What I did say and I will say it again is that there is interest in West's personal life (that otherwise called notability) and since there is interest there should be some mention of his personal life. What I did say and I will say it again is that whether a Wikipedia article mentions Obama's desire to play basketball or not is not necessarily notable or important, but it is there. What I did state and I will repeat it is that there is stuff out there but just because there was once a commentary on stuff does not mean that stuff can't go in an article, stuff like Obama's basketball play. What I did say and I will say it again is that this kind of information does not in any way violate any rules of Wikipedia. What I did say and I will say it again it is a matter of style--that's all.--Corbridge (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me jump in here if I may. I'm gonna have to say I agree with this WP:OTHERSTUFF and what not. I mean, to say just because "In addition, West's hobbies certainly not belong, unless they are somehow relevant to what makes him notable"????.... Well isn't that USUALLY the case when it comes to "Personal Life" info? That's kind of the point of that particular section. Just like "Early life" things usually are. For instance, in Romney's section, it's mentioned "Romney enjoyed partying and was known as a kinetic kid who loved to pull off non-malicious pranks, such as sliding down golf courses on large ice cubes, dressing as a police officer and tapping on the car windows of teenage friends making out, and staging an elaborate formal dinner in the center of a busy intersection". Pretty sure most really couldn't care less about something like that but it's in there just to sorta give you an idea of the kind of "person" that particular subject is/was. Usually you're not gonna know the sorta few "when you're not in the spotlight" type of things. That's the point. Heck, I guarantee most of us couldn't name more than a few of the wives names of members of the House. Should we just not mention their name too since it's "not notable"? Or it's not relevant to what makes him notable? because the subject isn't married to Elizabeth Taylor or Diana Ross, we shouldn't even put her name? Or maybe even a bit about her? On Rep Joe Wilson's page you've got all kinds of info on his sons and where he attends church. Just personal stuff not related to Joe's job or career. I mean, we can try to find to see if maybe West flies to the moon on a private rocket ship on weekends, and likes to wrestle alligators and pitbulls before lunch, and likes to hang upside-down with a rope tied to his leg when he goes to bed at night but I haven't been able to find any "notable" info like THAT about him so until then, we'll just have to settle for a few facts that he scuba dives, motorcycles, and likes to run. And where he attends church.  I believe in cases like this, the "tie should go to the runner" if it's TRUE. And those facts are true so. Just leave'em. It's not hurting you. RadPadFren (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the topic of notability is morphing away from my original, specific question, which no one seems to be addressing anymore- why should the name of the institutions that granted West's wife her degrees included in the article? Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a bit much to claim what appears to be an innocuous rhetorical statement is really an attempt to speculate on your motives when you've been digging through the contribution history of at least one other editor. Everyone's talking around the real issue here: should this material be included or not?  What their position, editors should make their case instead of merely asserting it or saying this other article does this unrelated thing. Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit much to argue that Arbor was not being sarcastic when Arbor made the crack about West's favorite color.--Corbridge (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say so. If it bothers you so much, you can ask him to retract that statement once you retract your previous statements discussed above.  You seem to be missing the point, which may be due to my lack of clarity, so I will attempt to rephrase.  Discuss issues regarding the article, not issues regarding other editors.  Rehashing individual butthurt is pointless and counterproductive.  Drop it and move on to the issues regarding article content. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, you really should.--Corbridge (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, hello again, everyone. A few clarifications, in no particular order. First, I'm a 'her,' not a 'him.' Next, the favorite color question wasn't so much sarcasm as it was an intellectual exercise -- a way to illustrate the slippery slope argument without falling back on cliches. However, I think the first reference to sarcasm was my comment about how I was baffled about why anyone would want these details in there. I was actually being sincere, but if you found it in any way distressing, Corbridge, I apologize as that was not my intent. Finally, none of this has anything to do with the actual _content_. As far as that goes, I have yet to see anyone make a case for including this trivia that doesn't include irrelevant references to other articles or accusations about other editors. Am I wrong? Arbor832466 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted.--Corbridge (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, whether Obama likes basketball or not is true trivia, but having that fact in the article is a matter of style. It is not a matter of notability (red herring), but it does provide the reader a sense of who Obama is, just like West's motorcycle gives us a sense of who he is.--Corbridge (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Corbridge: Can you please try to keep the discussion to this article? I think it would be much more productive to discuss this issue on its merits, rather than continually falling back on what is going on with some other article. (also, i shortened my username. fyi.) Arbor8 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Because Gamaliel pointed to an obscure discussion that indicated that we should try to avoid some arguments? That discussion is not dispositive. As a matter of fact, Obama's basketball playing is quite instructive to our discussion. Both men are unique politicians. Both are about the same age. Both are currently serving their country, etc. Now, I don't see any complaints on Obama's article's talk page about references to how he met Michelle or about his hobbies such as basketball. I would argue that if the editors over there seem to find that discussion important why isn't that discussion important over on this brother's page? I'm asking the question.--Corbridge (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the editors over at the Obama page have some special insight or powers we don't have? Let's just discuss West here. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of times, people use other examples to try to put what they're talking about in perspective. His statement and reasoning is completely sensible and applicable. One may be curious as to why it bothers you so much. Should this West's page be held to different standards? As I said earlier, it's things like that (hobbies, interests) that give you an idea of who the subject is as a person, that's all. A few may be house congressman but when they're not working or having to do things in relation to their public career, one may enjoy playing softball and building model airplanes in their spare time. Another might like fishing and hunting during their spare time. Another might like playing Chess and be real into Science Fiction material.  Another might like skydiving and wrestling alligators. Just gives ya an idea of who they are. Just like one would who enjoys heavy metal rock music while another enjoys classical oldies. Seems pretty sensible. But not sensible how West who's one of 435 house members, there's 100 Senators, a President, a Cabinet, a Supreme Court, and you or a couple of ya have decided to zoom in on West for some odd reason and disregard other pages? Corbridge HAS BEEN using focusing on West. He's just using others to try to get across what he's trying to convey. Obama's basketball, love for rooting on the Chicago White Sox and the Pittsburgh Steelers tells ya immediately he's a sports guy. Not all politicians and/or people are. RadPadFren (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the speculation about my motivation. The point is, that often we use examples to illustrate a larger point, but when an argument is entirely based on examples of another time something occurred, and not on the merits of the thing being argued, it, to me, points to a rather weak argument. So, "I think we should do this, for this reason, which was also done here" I'll buy... "I think we should do this because it was done over here" not so much. Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? Arbor8 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, MY favorite color is lime green. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given your username, I would have guessed pine. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

An attempt at gauging consensus
An idea: Please register your opinion on this matter and briefly (one sentence or less) discuss your rationale. Perhaps then we will see where we stand and start bringing an end to the circular arguments. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are two issues in the discussion above: Inclusion of West's wife's alma maters/degrees and inclusion of West's hobbies. Which are we discussing here? Arbor8 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I will split the poll. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A poll for a edit page for Wikipedia is comedic. That doesn't justify whether something should be included or not. If you happen to come upon my street, including my household, and ask who thinks smoking should be banned, and base it on that, then smokers aren't going to get a fair shake considering my area just happens to make up an area filled most of us who find it disgusting. But LOL. WOW. As I said, all this for one member of the House. That is hilarious. It's simple not TOO DETAILED facts about him away from work. And it's gotten to THIS? RadPadFren (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gotten to this because people seem to want to post long rants instead of attempting to come to a consensus. This non-binding poll is merely an attempt to gauge consensus and help bring this matter to a close.  You are welcome to participate or not participate as you wish.  If you have another method you believe will bring this manner to an amiable and civil conclusion you are welcome to attempt it with my blessing and assistance. Gamaliel (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is obviously not a vote, but I'll agree with Gamaliel here, this will help take the recurring irrelevant arguments out of the above discussion, and show where editors stand on the issue. Dayewalker (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. How about *gasp* letting it go? It's just a few facts. Why do people care so much about one sentence on one very full page of a person who is just one of hundreds who work for the Federal United States Government? To me, if it's TRUE, and it's not TOO detailed or anything and if there's a "seesaw" of it, then just let it be if it's true. And the argument of "It's not what makes him notable" Well, ONE, so are other things in this article. TWO, that's kinda why it's called "PERSONAL". It's personal life. Usually ones "personal life" isn't going to have to do with why they are "notable" unless you're the Kardashians sisters who are notable for just having a reality show about their lives. LOL. The stuff is simple facts about his personal life. It should stay. Plain and Simple. RadPadFren (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that other editors on this page do not agree with your assessment of this matter. This poll is an attempt to see where everyone stands and start to come to an agreement. Announcing that everyone else should agree with you is simply not enough to bring this matter to a close.  If you do not wish to participate in this attempt to gauge consensus, please post in another section.  Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) As the last two extraordinarily irrelevant posts from SPA RadPadFren and Corbridge  show, we've had this discussion derailed for long enough. I support the roll-call to simply illustrate the consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So because other people, who've decided to live on this page, are afraid a few hobbies mentioned on a House congressman's Wikipedia page might elevate him to dictator of the universe, it's wrong? No, fact is... Just a "certain kind" of people just happened to participate on the poll. I think the poll is silly. For instance, I just checked to see what the deal was about the wife's degrees. I think the alma maters are too much but mentioning her degrees and what she does for a living is perfectly applicable.(because some might be curious as to whether she's a house wife or not or something of that nature when West is away from the family working) But her alma maters are too much.  Now, onto a few of West's hobbies. Yes, they are harmless and should be included because they're simple facts about his "personal life" in the "Personal Life" section of the article. Plain and simple. And they're not too detailed or take away from the section by any means. RadPadFren (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read Assume good faith. People who disagree with you just have a different opinion on how to interpret Wikipedia policies and style guidelines. You are welcome to register the opinions you have expressed in the non-binding poll below, as other editors are. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will, but it still doesn't solve anything. We already knew where who stood where. RadPadFren (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have learned I am considered "special" as I am a very "special circumstance". However, I think the very special circumstance is the subject here. To see so MANY, a plethora of others, in this subjects field have little personal things not even in the ballpark of what makes them notable or connected to their career and it go along just fine while we have a few guys who have chosen to live on this page scared to death that just info about how West scubas and motorcycles is so DIFFERENT and they just can't let that piece of info out there is just appalling and humorous at the same time. Just like the double standards. :) RadPadFren (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to stop your personal attacks. We don't have double standards, and we don't live on this page.  For me, for instance, this is just one of about 1700 pages that I personally watch.  You're right that many other articles have lots of fluff on them.  The solution to that is not to keep the unencyclopedic trivia here, but to remove it from all of those other pages, too.  You are more than welcome to edit other pages besides this one (to date, it is the only one you have edited), and correct the problems that you see there. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it. So I suggest that you, Qwyrxian, Arbor, our resident admin, Gamaliel, and all of the other editors here on this article, head right now over to Obama's article and demand that his hobbies be removed immediately. Come on, as Arbor says, let's go. I'm game.--Corbridge (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you took something personally. I was not "attacking" anyone. Just making an observation. And I haven't made any other edits because I am not a regular "wikipedia editor" as others here.  Nor have I made any edits about the topic we've been going over here. I just saw the discussion and felt the consensus should be blatant, and still think so. And I just see arguments or reasoning that I believe just doesn't align well, AT ALL. RadPadFren (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Support inclusion
— RadPadFren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1) Support participating under protest because consensus is NOT a vote.--Corbridge (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) * You are absolutely right. This is NOT a vote.  And polls on Wikipedia are never considered votes, binding or otherwise.  But they are a useful tool to attempt to get to consensus, and that's all we are doing here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support degrees being included ONLY.... NOT the alma maters. RadPadFren (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support degrees ONLY. Not alma maters. Arbor8 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support both degrees AND alma maters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion

 * 1) Oppose but would not object to listing degrees only.Wkharrisjr (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose with the same caveat as Wkharrisjr; what her degrees are in seems to be very basic information, but where she got them is irrelevant to Allen West's bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)
 * 3) Oppose extremely trivial information about someone who is not the subject of the article. Dayewalker (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Trivia.69.113.139.131 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Looking over the responses it appears that a number of editors feel that the degrees are appropriate for inclusion but the alma maters are not. Is this an acceptable compromise to both sides? Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is exactly what I was trying to accomplish in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Arbor8 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems clear to me; as a side note, this is one of the benefits of taking a careful straw poll--sometimes we find that we have agreement where it looked like we didn't, or where we have agreement for part of an edit but not a full one. In other words, the polling didn't substitute for consensus, it just easily showed us that we have consensus where we thought we didn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is a landslide going on here I agree with the proposal. But there is nothing "careful" about the straw poll or anything else. It is just old fashioned "we have more than you" so we win. But of course this issue is not decided forever because consensus does change.--Corbridge (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing out of the ordinary going on here with respect to Wikipedia practices or policies. Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even when I flat out state that I agree with the proposal you have to make a snide remark. I never stated that there is anything extraordinary going here. Your comment was unnecessary and snide--as an admin you should know and act better. You shot down a strawman that doesn't exist. What I did say is that the group that wants to strip all personal info about West is winning simply because they outnumber the editors that want to put in a little bit more personal information, to make the article similar to the Obama article.--Corbridge (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely nothing snide about my response. It was a clear and unambiguous statement in response to your bizarre allegations of impropriety in a simple and routine straw poll.  It's pretty clear that you're using this talk page to air your gripes at being on the opposing side of consensus instead of productively working with other editors.  And, of course, a certain amount of grousing comes with the territory on Wikipedia talk pages, but it's pretty unseemly when that grousing is coupled with complaints about the behavior of others that are either about much more insignificant comments than your own offending statements or complaints that are entirely the product of your own imagination.  Your behavior has been largely indulged thus far as you are a relatively new user, but since you've been given multiple warnings and already had at least one offensive comment redacted, I think the time for indulging you is over.  I now formally ask that all further comments from you are within the guidelines of behavior outline at WP:CIVILITY and do not contain attacks or inappropriate allegations regarding the behavior of other editors.  If you have any questions about appropriate behavior or complaints about the behavior of another editor, please direct them to my talk page, the talk page of another administrator, or WP:AN.  Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support inclusion
— RadPadFren (talk • # Support These bibliography facts about his life are perfectly fine and non-contentious. Many other BLP's have similar section without issue.  Arzel (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Support participating under protest because consensus is NOT a vote.--Corbridge (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Support because they do fit in the particular section about the subject in which they are "Personal" facts about him away from his "Public" Career. And that is kind of what a "Personal Life" is... RadPadFren (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Support and agree with wat has been said above. most other high profile men in west's industry have similar things. it fits perfectly in the section Dken5 (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Support Encyclopedic: Giving information about many subjects; comprehensive in scope.  Comprehensive: Dealing with all or many of the relevant details; including much; inclusive.  Inclusive: Including or tending to include; esp., taking everything into account; reconing everything.  Source: Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.  ISBN 0-671-41809-2

contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose inclusion

 * 1) Qwyrxian: Definite oppose, as these hobbies have nothing to do with what makes West notable.  This is an encyclopedia entry, not a biography or human interest newspaper article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, as Q above. Trivial. Dayewalker (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose trivia. Arbor8 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose trivia.69.113.139.131 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Followup
So...of the straw poll essentially show what we already knew--we have 3 opposed to inclusion, 2 supporting inclusion, although one of the supporters is an SPA who has made no edits outside of this article and xyr own user talk page. Consensus, of course, is not a vote. However, the burden for justifying inclusion is on those who wish to include it. Other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the general feeling that this is worth including, I don't see a clear specific argument for keeping this in. Can someone justify exactly why this is necessary, or even highly desirable? I still hold that the information is not "encyclopedic" in that it isn't important to his biography, it has no connection to his reasons for notability, and, may, in fact, be being included for advocacy purposes. Unless there's some clear reason for inclusion, I think it's time to take this out. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, I agree w/ Qwyrxian. Burden is is on inclusion in a BLP and it hasn't been met. Arbor8 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out. Basically, this is info added near the end of February that never had consensus to be in the article.  Now that a number of people have expressed the opinion that the information should not be there, it should stay out until a consensus can be established for inclusion.  Essentially, we ended up following a weird path: someone Boldly added the info, it was reverted, but then re-reverted and the info stayed in the article while we discussed it.  Instead, it should have stayed out until we agreed to add it, so it's now out.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem including this information. Many BLP's have aspects about their personal life in their entry.  This is a BLP and I find it odd to say it is not a biography as a reason for non-inclusion.  It is certainly not a BLP issue to not include it.  Arzel (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)