Talk:Alvin Greene/Archive 1

Picture
This is an official picture of Greene and it should be left up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychonaught (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's obviously not a free image--and nonfree images of living people are not allowed in BLPs. Blueboy96 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have received permissions from SC Democratic Party to use his official campain picture on Wiki. Picture and permissions email is stored in WikiCommons now. Innab (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Military Service

 * Did Mr. Greene serve in the Army or the Air Force? We need some clarification on this. In the introduction is stated that the was an Army Vet further down the article it said he was an Air Force Vet. Paragoalie (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to his website, he was in the "United States Air Force as an intelligence specialist and in the United States Army as a unit supply specialist". AlanK (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks AlanK. I guess it could be worded better. Paragoalie (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The article suggests he was honorably discharged. Other than from his own mouth, is there any reputable source that can prove he was honorably discharged? Otherwise, whether it was an honorable or dishonorable discharge is unknown.
 * I was under the impression he didn't have a campaign website - do you have a link? --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my impression too.--Subman758 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.alvingreene2010.com/ "whois" has the date of 10-jun-2010 so that's about when it went live. 96.255.171.212 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That website now admits "This is an unofficial, grassroots support site." Thundermaker (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Greene-related SPAs
The following accounts have, at the time of this writing, only made edits to this article: Kevin2100 and Calvingreene. The latter of the two looks especially suspicious, for obvious reasons. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't forget User:Alvingreene2010. However, WP:SPAs are not prohibited.  I appreciate the prompt addition of the campaign website link. (was not an official website, just a supporter)  Yes they should be watched for WP:COI issues -- it's probably tempting to insert positive material and remove negative material. Thundermaker (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And Anatomy76, who appears to enjoy blanking the page... Stonemason89 (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also Bcommand. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

unverified and unnecessary paragraph
I'm new at editing these articles, but the statement:


 * "Greene's public interviews have been astounding to the point of incredulous [...]Greene has comically said merely one or two word answers to questions, at most a sentence."

Doesn't seem necessary or appropriate. I don't want to jump in and edit something, but it's a subjective statement without citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.255.150 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

' During Greene's time in the Air Force he received numerous poor evaluations from his superiors. The evaluations stated Greene was an ineffective leader who lacked organization and was unable to express thoughts clearly.[16] Greene received an honorable but involuntary discharge from the Army in 2009 after a 13 year career and has been unemployed since'

this seems like it is presented in a biased manner as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.77.169 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

NAACP, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton; Where are they now?
I can't help but wonder where these folks are now. I mean it seems to me that this is just the kind of crusade they would stand up for. Everybody attacking this AMERICAN PATRIOT, and those fools are nowhere to be seen. Kinda make you wonder don't it?--Subman758 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are the actual vote counts from this election?
I hope someone will dig up and add the actual vote counts in this election. All I can find, in source after source, is the percentage margin. An intelligent discussion of whether or not this election was rigged has to deal with the actual numbers of voters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.69.21 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * scvotes.org purports to be the SC State Election Commission. The counts should be there.  Thundermaker (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "purport" to be the SC State Election Commission, it is the SC State Election Commission, and yes, the results are there. Follow the links from the home page. Greene received 100,352 votes, and Rawl 69,853. That's a margin of 30,509. In order for voting machine error/corruption to have affected the outcome of the race, there would have to be 15,255 people who intended to vote for Rawl and had their votes recorded for Greene. There's no evidence that any alleged error was that widespread. JTRH (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

South Carolina Republicans have been known to recruit African-American challengers...
I deleted this sentence "South Carolina Republicans have been known to recruit African-American challengers to run against white frontrunners in Democratic primaries, with a view toward damaging the frontrunner's general election prospects.[19]" The Citation to this sentence leads to a yahoo news article which never mentions that South Carolina Republicans are "known" to recruit African American challengers in Democratic Primaries. The use of the construction "South Carolina republicans are known to..." without a proper citation is tantamount to campaign propaganda, and is use of weasel words, and shows strong POV, all in contrast to wikipedia policy. If no one can provide a realistic citation for this, it has to go and stay gone. 24.111.218.90 (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The source says:
 * It's not uncommon in South Carolina for Republicans to recruit African-American challengers to run against white frontrunners in Democratic primaries in the hope of drumming up racial tensions. (Greene is black.) The straw candidates aren't supposed to win — they're just supposed to create a racially divisive primary to damage the candidate's ability to put together a coalition in the general election.
 * I think the deleted text follows from that fairly directly, i.e. if it's "not uncommon" it is known. Would you like to propose an alternate wording?  Thundermaker (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this would work better if it cites journalist James Cook directly as a source. This is well supported by incidents referred to later in the paragraph as well, when "Rod Shealy recruited unemployed black fisherman Benjamin Hunt, Jr. to mount a primary challenge to Arthur Ravenel, Jr." Gobonobo  T C 03:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Not uncommon" seems like weasel wording to me. The article cited mentions only one prior instance. A strong allegation of this nature needs strong citations. I have no objection to noting something along the lines of "Democratic party officials have noted that in the 200? campaign XYZ was recruited..." But let's stick to the facts in so far as it is possible and try to leave out the innuendo. I think there's already too much of the shotgun style questioning of every possible impropriety that may or may not have taken place. This really pushes our BLP limits. What we know is that questions have been raised and investigations are under way. The Democratic party in S.C. isn't happy about the outcome and attributes it to some sort of foul play, although they haven't pinpointed just what kind of foul play they think it was yet. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok so according to John Cook it is "not uncommon" for republicans to infiltrate Democrat primaries in South Carolina. Do we have at least 2 concrete examples of this happening? I'm sorry, but if according to John Cook it was "not uncommon" for "communists" or "KKK members" or "martians" to infiltrate the Democrat primaries, and THERE WAS NO OTHER CITATION, would that be acceptable? No, it would not. Even adding the "according to John Cook" disclaimer, this has no place in this article. 24.111.218.90 (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As it currently stands, the article says that Republicans "have been known" to recruit African American challengers. There needs only be one example for this, as it does not say "have been known for repeatedly." The statement is also qualified by attributing it to the journalist John Cook. The New York Times has a piece on the 1990 incident that delves into the history of race baiting in the region. Gobonobo  T C 06:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Not uncommon" is a hoighty-toighty double negative meaning "common". Is that a weasel word too? I guess it is. The cited criminal case is one example when they've been caught, and there are 3 other examples mentioned in the Cook article. Thundermaker (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Obscenity charge
Is it illegal in South Carolina for an 18-year-old to view pornography, or was the eighteen year-old the complainant? This really doesn't make sense in terms of criminal law unless the local statutes are explained or it was the eighteen year-old herself who compalined.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the Mother Jones ref. From her later comments, it's pretty obvious that the girl did not enjoy the obscenity at all; but it doesn't explicitly say who called the police so we can't make the assumption that it was her.  Thundermaker (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Porn isn't automatically obscene, though. I wonder if he flashed her a goatse pic. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He was trying to pick her up, how would a pic of a gay male possibly help? I'm sure display of straight porn to people who don't want to see it is prohibited in SC.  It's a very conservative state.  Thundermaker (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC
 * It does not make any sense to me, if I open a website that I have no control of in presence of another person and it unexpectedly flash some inappropriate pictures, then I go to jail for 5 years? It can happens to anybody that website you intend to open suddenly has some nude pictures in commercial blocks, or due to spyware malfunction, or just a website unexpected redirect, especially foreign websites. Laws are needed to be adjusted to modern technology; otherwise half of the country can be in jail one day on such a ground. Also does telling gal "Lets go to your room" in a library considered a sexual proposal? May be he just wanted to study books with her? Anyway, it is not worth 5 years in jail IMHO Innab (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what your, my, or anyone else's opinion is as to what constitutes obscenity or pornography and the punishment for it. What matters is what the laws on the books in South Carolina say. JTRH (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why someone removed all references to his felony charge from the article in Wikipedia? Republic of Texas (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you hit control-F and search for obscenity I think you will see that it's still there. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One little, tiny sentence hardly compares to what I put in there. Republic of Texas (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just one little tiny sentence. There's a section called "Obscenity charge," the contents of which were previously in the article but given a header.  It's not like the article isn't discussing it, it's just not placing undue weight. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed that section. So i added some of my stuff to it. Republic of Texas (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that showing porn to a minor is illegal, but how are his actions illegal? Immoral yes, but how is it illegal since the girl was 18? Emperor001 (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's illegal because it's against the law in South Carolina. And the woman complained about it. As I said above, it doesn't matter what our individual opinions of this are, what matters is what the SC law says. JTRH (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know what the law was in SC. The only laws about porn that I had heard of was that it was illegal to show it to a minor and in some states, it is illegal to seel hardcore porn.  Emperor001 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the relevant section of the SC Code of Laws. Scroll down to Section 16-15-305. JTRH (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, the charge will eventually be dismissed. Obscene content is not the same thing as pornography. And you have a 1st Amendment right to speak on whatever you want, as long as it is not obscene (according to U.S. Supreme Court standards, not South Carolina law standards). Republic of Texas (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that obscenity is not automatically covered by the First Amendment, and that it's defined by community standards, and that's reflected in the phrasing of the South Carolina law (follow the link I posted above). In other words, whether or not what he did in this case is obscene is defined by South Carolina's legal standards. And you can't assume that the charge will be dismissed (or make any other assumptions about it) if you're not familiar with SC's case law. JTRH (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While the first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, It is the last prong that is held to what is reasonable to a person of the United States as a whole.  The national reasonable person standard of the third prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in a certain community might be considered obscene but on a national level might have redeeming value.


 * The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:


 * Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
 * Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
 * Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.


 * The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied (to include the condition on national standards).


 * For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard.  What offends the average person in Jackson, Mississippi, may differ from what offends the average person in New York City.  The relevant community, however, is not defined.


 * Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test, stemming from the English precedent.


 * In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts (such as is the case here with this guy) is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in Provo, Utah, took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a Movie Buffs video store, in Utah County, Utah, a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the US. Researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, accessing far more material than the store was distributing.


 * That is why I feel that the charge will be dismissed. Just showing someone a naked picture is not enough - under the Miller standard - it has to be what Miller has defined as obscene.  the only way the SC charge will work is if the picture in question is, in fact, obscene as that term is defined under Miller, and I do not think the State can meet it's burden here.


 * I would not be surprised, when this is all over, to see this guy filing a civil rights lawsuit against the cops or university. Personally, if it was me or I was his legal counsel, I'd go after the girl, too, and hit her with a defamation lawsuit right right now (with allegations racial bias on her part).  I would not wait for the trial.  I'd file now.


 * Questions that would be asked of her in this prosecution are: If a white guy / kid had shown her the pic, would she have been equally offended, or was she offended because it was a blackman that did it?  What are her feelings about blacks?  What negative experiences has she had?  Has she ever said the "N"-word?  And how many times in the past has someone(such as a brother, boyfriend, etc.) shown her naked pictures without her consent and how did she react in those situations?  How many times has she herself viewed pornography / sexual content in the past and what types?  Why did she feel 'offended'?  Is she a virgin or sexually inexperienced?  What types of sex acts has she engaged in before?  These are all relevant lines of inquiry with regards to whether or not she really felt 'offended' and how or why it is that she feels the way that she feel.  And these are questions that I just now came up with in 30 seconds sitting at home.


 * To be honest, I never even heard of this guy before till yesterday when I heard on the radio about some U.S. Senate candidate being indicted for obscenity. So i Googled his name.  I have no feelings about this guy one way or the other and do not know his situation.  Republic of Texas (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one knows what's going to happen, whether the charge will be dismissed (hint: the prosecuting attorney is a Republican), whether the "race card" will be played, how a South Carolina jury will rule, or whether Greene will file some sort of civil rights action afterwards. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a vehicle for that kind of speculation. JTRH (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what's going to happen and I'll bet you $50 million that it'll end up getting tossed out of court. That is my expert opinion based upon 25 years of experience & knowledge as a federal investigator and prosecutor.  I'm not trying to be funny here.  I just think that it is a totally bogus charge and all it does is cause the State to lose credibility.  It will likely lead to a civil rights lawsuit because any attorney should have either known the law or researched the law PRIOR to bringing charges.  Its called 'due diligence' and it is a legal and ethical requirement for ALL attorneys.  That's one of the reasons why that prosecutor with the Duke LaCross case got into so much trouble (that and lying to the court about evidence).


 * The Miller test has been the law for nearly 40 years, so it's not like it is brand new or not well-known. That is basic L1 constitutional law.  Naked pictures do not equal obscenity.  40 years that has been the law.  About the only kind of porn that can be considered 'obscene' under Miller is stuff involving children and, maybe, (and I really mean 'maybe here), and maybe stuff with animals.  Oh, and 'fisting', too.  But water sports, S & M and all that freaky kinda stuff is legal under Miller.  Not my cup of tea, but whatever.


 * As far as the race card is concerned, she specifically called him 'a big boy' and we all know that 'boy' to a black man is just like the N-word. She could have said 'he is a big guy' or 'large man' or any other descriptive words.  But she chose those words for a reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republic of Texas (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just hate to see this kind of crap happen because the criminal justice system loses credibility whenever you file charges in a situation that you know will lead to a dismissal or directed verdict against you. Republic of Texas (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't "know" what's going to happen. You think you know. And you may turn out to be right, though I doubt it. At any time in your career, have you tried a case involving a black male defendant accused of a sexually-related crime in South Carolina? But as it says at the top of the page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alvin Greene article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." There are plenty of news media message board sites that are more appropriate venues for this discussion, and Wikipedia's not about anyone's speculation, yours or mine. JTRH (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We now all know what happens: August 12, 2010, a Richland County grand jury indicted Greene for disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity. The first charge, of disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity, is a felony and carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000. The second charge, communicating an obscene message to another person without consent, is a misdemeanor and carries a maximum of three years and a maximum fine of $10,000. I am not trying to approve Alvin's behavior, but what worry me is that guy now got 8 years in jail just for showing a picture to a fellow student, when average sentence for rape is 7 to 6 years. This can explain why Incarceration in the United States has the highest documented rate in the world at 754 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2008). By comparison, the incarceration rate in UK was 153 persons imprisoned per 100,000 residents, in Canada - 116, in Germany - 88, in Italy - 92, China - 119, Japan - 63, India - 33. Here is List of countries by incarceration rate. Something is really wrong with US if we have 6 times more people in jail per capita then the rest of the civilized world... Also need to notice that since 1980-th the number of incarcerated americans grew up more then 4 times, but general US population grew up only 1.36 times. Innab (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Innab, please remember when posting, even on a discussion page, not to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and that it is not a blog or chatroom. Atlantabravz (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Camille McCoy
This article has some more information about Camille McCoy, the 18-year-old who charged Greene with obscenity. . Unfortunately there's no picture of her available (that I can find). Stonemason89 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That can be construed as a BLP violation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. That McCoy quote just jumped out at me when I first saw it--I thought it was quite odd that she'd say it. But thanks for reminding me about BLP. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)




 * I added a sentence saying she was the one who called police, that should make things clearer. Thundermaker (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason, here is a link to her photograph. I can already see the race card being played - especiaily with her comment that "he is a big boy." http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mccoy-e1276389704110.jpg Republic of Texas (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball
Please stop adding this "if he's elected, he will be the first blah blah blah" stuff. If it comes to pass then its historical significance can be evaluated, but since this candidate is, at best, a longshot (down by 37% currently) to win the general election, there is nothing to support this other than idle speculation. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What about this part?
 * Greene is already the first African-American to be nominated for the U.S. Senate by a major party in South Carolina since Reconstruction (which ended around 1877).
 * That's not an 'if', not speculation, not WP:CRYSTAL. It's one of the notable facts about Greene.  I think you should put it back.  Thundermaker (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't, but it is already in the lead so I didn't really see the use of simply repeating that again, but I'm not opposed if you want to restore just that sentence.  has already reverted the entire flipping paragraph back again in without discussion here though, and since I've already reverted twice would rather not do so again, but others are free to. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * His candidacy is historic. There are a lot of race issues involved, see the history of vandalism to this article for example, and these facts have been noted in reliable sources. Please refrain from removing them again as several editors have objected repeatedly. You also need to cool off apparently, as your commentary is heated and disruptive. Also, please refrain from using the discussion page as a soap box. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact it is you that need a bit of a tongue-curbing, buddy boy. There is simply no sense to propping a dark horse candidate up to be the first-this or first-that, sourcing of such is not the issue; the issue is if it a) relevant and b) encyclopedic.  There is certainly nothing historic about Green's candidacy, this isn't exactly the second coming of Barack Obama here, despite what you seem to believe, and push. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already said in an edit summary, mention in the WP:LEAD is not a substitute for mention in the main text. I have just re-worded the paragraph to focus more on the present and not on a speculative future.  Perhaps Tarc will find this more acceptable.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds less like speculation now, but is it?
 * "He is one of three men, along with Kendrick Meek of Florida and Mike Thurmond of Georgia, who are currently trying to become the fifth African-American to serve in the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction, and the first from the South."
 * Will that still be notable if he fails? If it's a sentence that we're just going to delete on November 9 because it's no longer a notable fact, maybe it isn't a notable fact now.  I realize that the official WP:NTEMP policy does not apply to article content per WP:NNC, I'm just saying, 10 years from now when somebody does a web-search for "first black senator from the south", do we want this page to come up?  Thundermaker (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. It is certainly notable now, and in the future, that at this time no African-American has ever been popularly elected to the Senate from the South (they were chosen by the state legislature during Reconstruction) and that Greene, Meek, and Thurmond are all operating in that climate.  Greene himself is quite cognizant of this, and mentioned it on election night .  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification: Senators were elected by the legislature during Reconstruction. At least that's what Wikipedia claims. ;) Freakshownerd (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough. I added the word "popularly" to my previous post.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be off-the-wall, but to me, the Greene-Meek-Thurmond phrasing quoted above makes it sound like they're competing against each other for a position called fifth African-American Senator, etc. I would suggest that a better phrasing is to begin with a statement that there have been only four black [or Afr-Am] Senators since Reconstruction, and that Greene is one of three such nominees in the 2010 election. (An alternative to "four black Senators since Reconstruction" would be "three popularly elected black Senators in U.S. history," since Roland Burris is an appointee.) Your thoughts? JTRH (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The original wording:
 * "Only two African American senators have represented South Carolina. They were elected by the legislature during Reconstruction, and Greene is the first African-American to be nominated for the U.S. Senate by a major party in South Carolina. If elected he would be the fifth African-American to serve in the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction, and the first from the South. Two other African Americans from the South, Kendrick Meek of Florida and Mike Thurmond of Georgia, are also currently running for Senate seats."
 * seemed more than adequate to me. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are my corrections/clarifications to what's immediately above: Senators were not popularly elected during Reconstruction, so he's the first black Senate nominee by a major party in SC ever, not just since Reconstruction. He would be the fifth, not fourth, black Senator since Reconstruction (the others are Edward Brooke [R-Mass.], Carol Moseley Braun, Barack Obama, and Roland Burris, the latter three of whom held the same seat from Illinois). Greene (or Meek or Thurmond) would be the fourth popularly elected black Senator.
 * And a related concern: If (hypothetically) Greene, Meek and Thurmond all win, they will take office on the same day. Which one of them is "the fifth black Senator" or "the first from the South"? All three of them can't be. They could be "fifth, sixth and seventh," but that's not a really good way to describe it. How about this: Only four African-Americans have served in the Senate since Reconstruction [and/or only three have been popularly elected], and none of them from the South. Greene is one of three black candidates currently running for the Senate from a Southern state; the others are Kendrick Meek (D-Florida) and Michael Thurmond (D-Georgia). [Have Meek and Thurmond won their primaries? If so, it can say "three black nominees."] Does this make sense? It sounds like a semantic quibble, but it really does affect the accuracy of the article. Thanks for your consideration. JTRH (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Another try:
 * Only two African American senators have ever represented South Carolina. They were elected by the legislature during Reconstruction, and Greene is the first African-American to be nominated for the U.S. Senate by a major party in South Carolina. If elected he would also be the fifth African-American to serve in the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction, and the first from the South. Two other African Americans from the South, Kendrick Meek of Florida and Mike Thurmond of Georgia, are also currently running for Senate seats."

Freakshownerd (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my points above weren't clear. (1) He's the first black candidate ever to be nominated for the Senate by a major party in SC. In my mind, that's more historically significant than it is that he would be the third black Senator from SC in history, and you can then leave out the whole thing about Reconstruction and Senators previously being elected by legislatures. (2) If Greene, Meek and Thurmond all win, and (according to the phrasing) Greene becomes the fifth African-American Senator since Reconstruction, or the first popularly elected from the South, what does that make the other two? Since there are plural black candidates running, the article can't use singular terms (using "the" implies "the only") to describe the outcome if Greene wins. The whole thing could be avoided by simply mentioning that only three other black Senators have ever been popularly elected, and Greene is one of three candidates running from the South now. Much more direct and less complicated. JTRH (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it is misleading to say someone is the first of something but fail to note that others have held the same position (or in this case a higher position) through other means. Context is important. And as it's race or ethnicity or whatever we want to call it that's being addressed here, the history and the context of the previous senators is very significant. As far as saying he would be the fifth or that there were four previous,. that doesn't matter much to me. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but politically and historically, there's a big difference between a black Senator being popularly elected in a white-majority state, which has only happened to three people in history (none in the South), and a black Senator being chosen by a black-majority Reconstruction-era legislature. Denoting that he would be the first black Senator from SC since Reconstruction, and that others have held the job before, is fine, but it's also important to note that he would be the first popularly elected black Senator from the South ever. JTRH (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We're getting a little side-tracked here but it's an interesting subject. Were the legislatures black-majority during reconstruction? I believe I read that the population in many areas was. So wouldn't the legislature have represented the population? Like an electoral college? It's not clear to me how significant the difference between popular election verse parliamentary election would be, as they should both be forms of representative governance (except that they weren't once the laws were changed). I was more impressed by length of time between the election and the circumstances of the previous instances (post civil-war era). Anyway, we'll see what happens I guess. :) Freakshownerd (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Former Confederates were not allowed to vote or hold office during Reconstruction. The legislatures were composed of former slaves and white migrants from the North who were known as "carpetbaggers." The state governments were not necessarily representative of the state populations. I've asked a friend who's a Civil War historian to fill me in on the details of representation and election in those days. I'll let you know what he says. JTRH (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, he would be the first black Senator from SC, period. Only two African-Americans served in the Senate during Reconstruction, and they were both from Mississippi.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * SC did send eight African-Americans to the House of Representatives from 1870 to 1897. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonlet is absolutely right. The people I was thinking of were Representatives, not Senators. Good catch. That settles it. JTRH (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At one point the article stated:
 * "If elected Greene would be the first African-American in the Southern United States to win a seat in U.S. Senate since Reconstruction[15] when Republican senators Hiram Rhodes Revels and Blanche Bruce represented Mississippi in the 1870s. If he wins he would also be the first popularly elected African-American Senator from the South, as state legislatures chose Senators in the 19th century. The first popularly elected African American senator was Edward Brooke, elected from Massachusetts in 1966. African Americans Kendrick Meek and Mike Thurmond are also running for Senate seats, in Florida and Georgia respectively." And before that it noted that "He is the first African-American to win a major party nomination for U.S. Senate in South Carolina".

But thing keep getting changed and I, for one, lose track. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

First ever, or since Reconstruction?
The article's second sentence currently reads, "He is the first African-American to be nominated for U.S. Senate by a major party in South Carolina since Reconstruction." User:JTRH has repeatedly removed the words I put in italics, and also removed the source for the statement and replaced it with a cn tag. His argument is that Greene is the first African-American nominee ever, not just the first since Reconstruction. He says the source is in error in limiting the statement to "since Reconstruction," but has offered no evidence to support this claim. He may or may not be correct (I've seen no evidence, but don't necessarily doubt it). However, the cn tag is very jarring to the reader, because one might assume that what is being challenged is Greene's status as a "first" of any kind. Thus, I argue that the tag should be assiduously avoided, and that the article should stay as written until/unless a source is found to strengthen the statement. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I see your point, I didn't mean for this to become an argument, and I won't revert it again. Let me just begin by saying that both times I changed the statement and inserted the tag, I made it clear in the edit summary that the CN tag was only there until I could source the statement, and I was working on that as I wrote. I'm waiting on a Civil War-era historian who is a recognized authority on this to return my e-mail, and that should settle the issue one way or another. Here's where I'm coming from: During the period when Senators were elected by legislatures, they were not "nominated by parties" in the sense that term is understood today. The procedure was different, though I don't know the specifics of it. The Washington Post blog article which is the cited source didn't take that into account, and actually (as you or another editor pointed out), SC had no black Senators even during Reconstruction, though it elected several black House members. So if Senators weren't "nominated by parties" prior to the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, providing for popular election, and no black candidates have been nominated by a major party since 1913, it stands to reason that Greene is the first black nominee ever. I'm just trying to verify that, and it's probably easiest to wait until another news source independently gets it right and points out that he's the first one ever. Again, I didn't mean to provoke an argument, but I thought I made my reason for the change clear in the edit summaries. JTRH (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the stronger statement you propose is likely true. The same line of reasoning had occurred to me, and I look forward to seeing a solid source that might back it up.  But unless you can cite such a solid source, you can't say it on WP.  Thanks for understanding.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama was a black senator, someone had to nominate him :-) I guess it was Democratic Party :-) African Americans Senators full list: Hiram Revels (R-Mississippi), 1870-71; Blanche Bruce (R-Mississippi), 1875-1881; Edward Brooke (R-Massachusetts), 1967-1979; Carol Moseley Braun (D-Illinois), 1993-1999; Barack Obama (D-Illinois), 2005-2008. Post signed: Innab (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Illinois is not South Carolina or even "the South" by any stretch of the imagination. Their license plates say "Land of Lincoln".  Thundermaker (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote
The University graduation dates contradict eachother, is it 1995 or is it 2000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.199.8 (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Campaign?
A link is needed to his campaign. I assume he must have a webpage somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.185.168 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Greene won the Democratic primary race ... despite very limited campaigning and campaign spending, no website, and no yard signs." His campaign was so grassroots, his barber probably uses a lawnmower.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This could be genuine: http://www.alvingreeneforussenator.com/

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an official site. JTRH (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection
This is yet another BLP in the news, with too many sentences without citations, so I semi-protected it for three days. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding it to the pending changes system would be a good idea too, once the three days are up. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote
Hi. Here is a quote from The Guardian that I think would improve the article."I followed politics as a child. I remember when Jesse Jackson ran for president when I was nine years old. He's a South Carolinian native. I made a campaign sign out of construction paper and put it out on the highway so folks could see it as they passed by. &mdash;Alvin Greene (in The Guardian, 6 July 2010)"Thoughts?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it. I don't understand why it was reverted after you added it to the article.  Thundermaker (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Occupation
I've listed Greene's current occupation (caregiver to father, at home) in the infobox, with its source.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"popularly elected" revert
I'm reverting these changes on several grounds.

1. The old version was worded more succinctly.

2. "popularly elected" might lead the reader to believe that Greene was elected to office, which is not true.

3. The cited source, Pakaderm Press, is a self-published blog, presumably a Republican-leaning one. See WP:Coi. Thundermaker (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Nomination and election are not the same thing. JTRH (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speech in Manning, SC
A video of Greene's speech in Manning, SC, can be found here. Cs32en  Talk to me  18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows...
"First" means it comes before the second, with nothing coming before the first. It does not mean it came with the second, not after the second. Alvin Greene came along, with noone before him, and then Mike Thurmond came long. Mike Thurmond came second, and Alvin Greene came first. That's how counting in order works. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Greene, Thurmond and Kendrick Meek are running in the same year and would be elected and sworn in on the same day. The chronological order of the primaries isn't historically significant. The fact that SC's primary is a month or so before Georgia's and two months before Florida's is trivial in that context. JTRH (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about Alvin Greene, not Mike Thurmond. The SC primary coming before the GA primary means that Alvin Greene was nominated first.  There is no reason to bring in Mike Thurmond, any more than there would be for me to go into the Mike Thurmond article with "but Alvin Greene was nominated first!" Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First is first.  Greene was the first nominated.  If they both win, they will both be first elected and first sworn-in.  But Greene's win in SC could have affected the voting in GA, so it's not symmetric, and Greene is the only one who gets the title of first nominated. Thundermaker (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Sorry for provoking a controversy. JTRH (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also apologize for my inability to clearly state the editorial point I was trying to make which led to the change in the first place. JTRH (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the most recent change is for a different reason. Harold Ford, Jr., was the Democratic Senate nominee from Tennessee in 2006, so Greene is demonstrably not the first from the South. I'm also investigating whether James Meredith (who integrated the University of Mississippi) ever won a Senate nomination; I know he ran for the House at least once. JTRH (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Harvey Gantt, NC 1990 and 1996; Ron Kirk, Texas, 2002. JTRH (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Denise Majette, Ga. 2004. The list goes on... JTRH (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Checking the source, it only makes the first-in-SC nomination claim anyway. Now it's my turn to apologize.  I shouldn't have jumped in without checking.  The first-in-the-south statement applies to the if-elected scenario, which I have my doubts we should even mention since it will lose all importance if DeMint wins (see WP:CRYSTAL).  Thundermaker (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article originally said first hominee in SC, but someone incorrectly broadened it to the South. And you're right - the if-elected scenario is...unlikely. I should have remembered the other black candidates when I was doing my edits last night, rather than focusing on the fact that Greene's not the only black nominee this year. JTRH (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. I forgot about Ron Kirk, however, Texas is not always considered a part of the Deep South.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But Denise Majette of Georgia was nominated in the deep south in 2004, so Greene was in no way the first nominated in the deep south.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you say, African American man.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, now this is getting comical. If you throw out the smaller parties (already done), six of the eleven Confederate States, and all the women, then maybe you could say he's the "first African-American male Senate nominee by a major party in the deep south".  But unless it's corroborated by a WP:RS, it's WP:OR and does not belong here.  Thundermaker (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not even the first one of that category. Mississippi had two black male Senators during Reconstruction, and Mississippi's even Deeper South than SC is. :) JTRH (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

attack video
I removed this:


 * In late July of 2010, an attack ad on Jim DeMint was released on youtube by alvin-greene.com . In the ad, a haunting narrator asks "Can we really afford Jim DeMint?" The ad was featured on Fox Nation, Huffington Post and alvin-greene.com.

The site alvin-greene.com does not represent Alvin Greene, it's a fake support site created as a joke. Fox Nation is a message board anybody can post to, and the Huffington Post article merely calls it a "fake attack ad" which qualifies it for an honorable mention in its list of campaign videos. I don't think it's relevant to this article. Other opinions? Thundermaker (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AP Review of his Air Force Record.
Seems this information should be included, as Alvin Greene is a major party's candidate for the US Senate but is barely able to handle mundane tasks. Also, he seems to think that the Air Force promotes terrorists and communists.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNyH1XTKf1Adc_-fGBAefXf8YYEQD9H4A2S80 "I'm telling you who they promote: the terrorists and the communists," said Greene Greene is "usually capable of handling mundane tasks with supervision" but is "not able to adapt to any changes to daily routine," the reviewer wrote, also noting that Greene had received multiple disciplinary actions for failing to perform his duties. Records showed Greene was kept at Shaw while the rest of his unit deployed after leadership "recognized his inability to contribute to the wartime mission." The reviewer also wrote Greene "required a daily to-do list" to perform basic duties and had a "consistent inability to follow instructions or maintain basic job knowledge." Most seriously, the reviewer wrote that Greene would represent "a threat to others" because of his inability to grasp the basics of military training. - Gwopy 21:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Greene's YouTube video & links to it
Some guy made a rap video supporting this guy Greene. At one time it was removed by YouTube, allegedly because of a copyright claim. But the video has since been reposted and left on YouTube. Is there a problem with linking to it? Just because someone somewhere else made the allegation of copyright violation does not mean that it really was a violation in fact. And since YouTube has allowed the video to be reposted, does that not imply that there was no copyright issue to begin with? What say you all and what is your support for your position? Republic of Texas (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe that the only reason it's still on YouTube is that the YouTube enforcers haven't found it yet. Wikipedia can't link to anything on YT that's posted in violation of copyright (or alleged by YT to be in violation of copyright). Without being able to link to YT, another source has to be found. If the WBTV site includes a working link to the video, that's a reliable source. JTRH (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does include a working link to the video. Stuff uploaded on YouTube is logged by its hash mark, that way when YouTube removes something it can't then be re-uploaded again (this is a result of the copyright lawsuit just when Google bought them).  That is why I believe that the video has been 'authorized' by YouTube.  FYI - a hash mark is like DNA for a digital file. Republic of Texas (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You can probably get around the hash function by re-rendering the video with different parameters. But ... I just checked, the same site which says the video had been taken down (but this story is 4 days older than the take-down story).  Now the original link is working again, so it appears that Youtube has decided that the video is not a copyvio.  I think we should put it back.  I don't want to say it was put back up because that's OR on my part, should we simply delete the take-down claim?  Thundermaker (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

CongLinks
The CongLinks template is used for both members and candidates for both national and state congresses and assemblies. Its purpose is consistent formatting. Alvin Greens has entries in both VoteSmart and NYT Topics, and those links belong in External links. Flatterworld (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's wait until Greene wins the general election before we declare him to be part of the US Congress. But we can still put in links.  Votesmart didn't tell me anything that wasn't already in the article, wouldn't add any value.  If you think any of them would, post them here, or in the external links section. Thundermaker (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to make an exception for Greene when every other candidate and nominee uses that template with all links which exist. Flatterworld (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How does the use of Template:CongLinks "declare [Greene] to be a part of the US Congress"? The template merely formats U.S. Congress–related links; there is no reason not to use it on candidate pages. --darolew (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * template:CongLinks is useful for legislators and candidates who have served time as legislators. Most congressional candidates have (at the state level in many cases) but not Greene.  Here's what I get when I click those links:


 * Votesmart's basic bio, including date of birth, gender, birthplace, which they probably got from this page, not useful as a link here.
 * Votesmart's voting record, no info.
 * Votesmart's interest group ratings, no info.
 * A link to the votesmart home page Wikipedia article.
 * Ontheissues, seems to give some helpful info.
 * A bio at New York Times, that's good.
 * Link to NYT home page Wikipedia article, unnecessary.


 * I score this a 2/7. That's a pretty bad signal to noise ratio.  Let's copy the 2 useful links and ditch the template.  Thundermaker (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever is convenient. --darolew (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, ProjectVoteSmart doesn't use Wikipedia as a source. It's generally considered the most reliable third-party source for candidate information, which is why it's always listed. The information it does NOT have is of interest precisely for that reason. Second, what you call a 'home page' is actually the Wikipedia article for those sources. We wikify them so users can learn more about them, who owns them, etc. Third, note the page views for this article. If you treat Greene differently than every other nominee, I'm sure you'll find yourself famous in the various political blogs, and not in a good way. Wikipedia has a reputation for being non-partisan, which is important to keep. Flatterworld (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I corrected the list to say "Wikipedia article". I wonder how you know that they don't use Wikipedia (especially the references posted here) as a source.  If you work on that project, advocating it here would be a possible WP:COI.
 * The reason Votesmart doesn't have a voting record for Greene is that he has not held a legislative position and therefore has no voting record. And since interest group ratings are often derived from voting records (by the interest group), the same applies to that.  If there are other candidates in this category, the Votesmart links should be removed from their pages too.  That's my opinion, but I'm not going to edit-war over it.  If everyone else is OK with the first 4 links in the "External links" section being useless, that's the way it can stay.  Thundermaker (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I hardly think those links are "useless." It's important, for example, to have documented proof that Greene either has spent no money or has not made the required filing with the FEC. (AFAIK, it's the latter, because his filing fee, which is known to have been paid, is a reportable campaign expense.) As Flatterworld said, what's not there is relevant to his candidacy. JTRH (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the first 4 links related to Votesmart (all on line 1). I think you may be referring to the Opensecrets link (on line 4 of the displayed page), the first one after the CongLinks template.  I am not calling that useless.  Thundermaker (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're going to 'wonder', try something else. I'm not associated with any of these sites, but after researching politicians for years I do know which are reliable and check their sources, and which don't. (And JTRH, you're correct that the FEC field is empty because there's still no FEC filing on record.) As for the 'extra' fields, anyone who reads the article and then actually thinks there's some 'voting record' somewhere probably needs to be told that explicitly. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)