Talk:George Allen (American politician)/Archive 2

Name again
I've lived in Virginia nearly all of my life, and I am very familar with George Allen, but I had no idea his middle name was Felix. According to wikipedia naming conventions, the most common name should be used (i.e. Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton). So we need at least George Allen (U.S. politician), if not have the main article George Allen with a dab header at the top. I know there was a vote to move the page back in May with no consensus, but the use of Felix is counter to the guidelines. Maybe if we didn't consider taking the main article, and instead changed this to something with a disambiguation parenthetical statement. Just my 2 cents.--Andrew c 23:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a change to George Allen (U.S. politician) has a lot better chance of being accepted than trying to change George Allen from a disambiguation page. And I agree with the arguments made in May - it's not clear at all that his father (the football coach) isn't more famous/notable than he is.


 * The best argument for keeping George Allen as a disambiguation page is that if someone types that in, freeform, in an article, it's only one step to the right page. If George Allen becomes the U.S. politician's article, then it's two steps (to the DAB, then to the right article) when someone does freeform.  And it's easy to put a redirect on George Felix Allen that gets readers to George Allen (U.S. politician).  John Broughton 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let the disambiguation page stand as is for now. If he becomes president, or something else happens that makes him far more notable than the others, his article should be at George Allen, but not until then.  I also think George Allen (U.S. politician) sounds reasonable, or something similar to it. Ufwuct 13:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Given that his father is fairly famous too, I'd say go with George Allen (U.S. politician) and leave the disambig page in place per Ufwuct.--Rosicrucian 21:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So what on earth is wrong with George Macaca Allen; quite meaningful, and unique. Think of what posterity shall remember this individual for/as say in year 2106. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tammil (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 September 2006.
 * It's inappropriate. There was a reason it got speedied and then protected, and as you've referenced it out of the blue I suspect you're well aware of what that reason is.--Rosicrucian 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Tammil, it's not 2106 yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jibal 09:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Though George Macaca Allen has become an epithet that shall hound Felix for rest of his (shortlived ?) political carrer; however I would prefer George Allen (Politician) as the title. And in year 2106 AD, thousands of references to George Macaca Allen would be preserved on the text-based internet search . Remember George W. Romney who prematurely killed his promising presidential hopes with inappropriate use of a single word "Brainwash" in 1960s version of MacacaGate? Most of you Neo-Macacas were probably not even around then. Please feel free to be offended by my reference to Neo-Macacas; However I just made this term up on the fly. MaCa 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

After 's recent attempt to change names (using copy/paste and speedy) it is apparent that a solution on the naming does need to be found. Since it is obvious that Senator Allen does not use his middle name I'm throwing my support behind George Allen (U.S. politician). If a few people say yay on this, we can get the proper move done and hopefully put this to bed. --StuffOfInterest 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per proposal by StuffOfInterest. Disambig page needs to stay intact, especially due to his father's fame.--Rosicrucian 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay. · j e r s y k o   talk  · 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. And to anticipate an issue not likely to be raised:  this is the official list of members of the 108th Congress.  Some Congressfolk use middle initials; most don't.  Allen is one of the "don't" group.  John Broughton 22:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea (sorry, just can't go with the misspelling :) ) --GGreeneVa 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As two people (Andrew c and Ufwuct) either proposed or endorsed this name earlier I'm going to call it good enough and do the move.  Of course, if anyone disagrees they are welcome to revert the move. Just please, no more copy/paste operations.  It plays hell with the edit history. --StuffOfInterest 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything seems to have made the move intact. Always nice to see it done right.--Rosicrucian 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks that way. Only had to clean up two double-redirects.  I'm sure a new incarnation of Macaca will be back in a day or two to complain about the name.  Thanks for the quick replies, everyone. --StuffOfInterest 22:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Accomplishments"
GoBolts added a bunch of "Accomplishments" by the senator, focusing on bills that he "introduced" or "co-sponsored." Geez, how much of an accomplishment is it if the bill fails to pass? How big an accomplishment is it if the Senator is one of a hundred co-sponsors?

Looks like a puff-up job by a supporter. I propose that the list be deleted, or at least trimmed to highlight his actions that are truly accomplishments.--RattBoy 00:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes i am a supporter, but that doesn't make what i posted inaccurate. I could have posted dozens of things on there, i chose only a select few/major ones.  Do only detractors get their say here?  BoltsFan


 * Well, it's certainly POV to label all of these "accomplishments." Additionally, Wikipedia should not list the entire voting records of Congresspeople, for obvious reasons.  On the other hand, we should be careful in any Congressperson's article to not "cherry pick" their record to make the person appear better or worse, as doing so would be POV.  However, some discussion of a person's record is definitely approrpriate.  I'm of the opinion that we should limit discussion of Allen's voting record in the Senate to major, notable bills (I'm not aware if this is policy, but I've suggested it in similar articles and it has worked well).  I'm not sure exactly how many of the ones currently listed qualify, but several could be cut. ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't list the entire voting record, just showing the major accomplishments. Just trying to make the page a little more balanced.  Yes i am a fan, but i'm not trying to whitewash here and if i mistaknely do so, please correct it or point it out.  I don't see how it's wrong to display a man's major bills in the senate, after all what else is there to judge a Senator's record by than the major bills he's pursued.  As to cutting them, he's had hundreds of bills he's been a part of, i just picked the ones i thought were the biggest ones.  I think the list is fine as is.  BoltsFan


 * Oh, I'm not opposed to including some of Allen's legislative accomplishments in the article. And I can tell you're not trying to whitewash anything.  I just want to make sure that what we list as accomplishments really should be there.  I think John's edits from this morning pointed us in the right direction. ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was a little dubious of the changes he made to the Macaca section as well. I feel if he wants to make that sort of correction, he'd be better off trying to correct Macaca (slur) first, rather than pushing PoV here.--Rosicrucian 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the macaca/macaque, they are pronounced as two completely different words. The reason i changed it from macaca to macaque is because i can't find anywhere on the web, or even at the macaca page, where it links to macaca itself being the racial slur.  The page does link however to "Macaque" being the racial slur and that's why i put the correction  72.130.182.2 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)GoBolts (Sep15)
 * As I said, if you feel the referenced Wikipedia article is biased or inaccurate, you'd be better off tackling said bias there first before arbitrarily correcting it here.--Rosicrucian 17:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the "co-sponsor" items. Co-sponsoring is essentially saying "yes, I'll vote for this"; it's hardly more notable than the actual vote.  Authoring (or co-authoring) a bill is typically substantial and generally worth noting (unless the "bill" is actually a resolution).  I'm not sure how important "introducing" a bill is; my sense is that it's roughly equivalent to authoring it, although I guess that the bill could have been written on the Executive Branch side; I left those in.


 * As for votes on bills, the only ones that I tend to think are notable are those on bills that are either (a) controversial (so the vote is close, and it makes a difference how a someone voted); and (b) bills where the vote is potentially unpopular in the home state/district. (For the latter, one can see this as a vote of courage, noteworthy, or an anti-incumbent bias for wikipedia articles on politicians.)   John Broughton 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The version as it stands now does not seem out of place for an article on a U.S. Senator, i.e., 7 bills that he authored or was a major part of. This is, after all, what Senators do.  However, the bullet "Introduced "Flexibility for Champion Schools Act..." seems to have a bit of silly POV wording.  Maybe "lower" instead of "dumb down"?  John, regarding your suggestion, a think the third bullet "Introduced Paycheck Penalty Legislation..." shows a bit of an anti-bureaucratic tendency, even if it's not necessarily "courage".  I also wouldn't be opposed to putting a reliable source, added as a footnote, if one of these bills was controversial to show that it was controversial.  Something like: "He supported X.... in contrast to most Republicans(ref) (or despite heavy criticism from XYZ(ref), or ...)".  Let's not go overboard on that either, as I'm sure we could find a source criticizing this guy for every thing he's done in his life (similar to this).  Overall, I think it's a good start though.  Cheers. Ufwuct 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bills that were close votes could reasonably be considered significant, as could bills that he went against the party line on I suppose. Records of each are available to the public.--Rosicrucian 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Allen-Durbin Amendment
Is this worth adding somewhere in this article? news article -70.176.93.225 07:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No - this is primarily a story about charges by Webb; it's a campaign issue. It could go into Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, though I'm unsure if it's significant enough even for that.


 * And an amendment to a bill, to spend more money, is not particularly newsworthy, so it doesn't belong in the section on Allen's Senate career as an accomplishment. John Broughton 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If a different source is found, such as Senate transcripts and their recorded tabling of both bills, as well as the chronology of events (which would be in the transcript), then it could be entered. It's obviously newsworthy, as many news sites have picked up, bare minimum, the original story, as well as many following up, and it causing a lot of waves in the blogosphere. Whether or not it would stand the test of time is another matter, but that's something that shouldn't be speculated on now. 24.76.187.90 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the repetition, but if it's going to be put to the test of time, that should be done in the Virginia United States Senate election, 2006 article. John Broughton 06:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Webb's support of Allen in 2000
Link number 37 is broken. I could find no other story supporting the claim that Webb supported Allen in 2000. .--User:Jkfp2004 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

George Allen - Question about Jewish Family History
why does George Allen make public condemnations of the suggestion/revelation that he is part Jewish by birth? is he an anti-Semite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.62.72.192 (talk • contribs).
 * No, it was a pointless question that had no relevance in the debate. 200.119.237.58 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what Neo-Macacas would like you to believe; the question that begs consideration is not whether "Allen is Jewish" but instead "Why Allen reacted so ANGRILY to the mere suggestion by "Jewish Press" that his mother "might" have been Jewish. Do you see a pattern of angry reactions here - to all the uncomfortable matters? The fact is that George Macaca Allen has himself made this an uncomfortable matter for himself; by going out on a limb to skirt the issue; howsoever trivial it might be. What else is he 'uncomfortable' or 'angry' about? MaCa 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Being asked out of the blue whether you have Jewish heritage is a pointed question, and not one he should really have to answer. It really has no bearing on the election and is an intrusive thing to ask.--Rosicrucian 20:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A future Presidential candidate being asked if he is part Jewish certainly is a relevant question. Issues such as his total support for Israel and going to war against Iran makes it relevant.67.72.98.45 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find your last statement quite naive and also quite offensive. At the least it should be reworded so you dont stereotype a whole ethnicity. You are looking at this whole situation the wrong way.Jasper23 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not naive. Jewish power in the US Senate is part of the reason America is at war in the Middle East today.67.72.98.45 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Blame the jews, huh. Thats original. Here is where my part of the discussion ends. Have fun being what you are.Jasper23 16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blaming Jews is so passé! Get with the program. You don't blame Blacks because it's so transparent, blaming Hispanics and Arabs is a bit chic now, so you may want to avoid that.  I suggest blaming Samoans, Lapps or even the Maori for all of the world's problems.  Just avoid blaming WASPs, sedevacantist Catholics, the House of Saud, and Scientologists  as most problems are probably their fault,and they actually have the resources to kill you for revealing that. Arthurian Legend 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 67.72.98.45 is not wrong in her/his assertion; nor was Hitler wrong in his belief in blaming Jooz for German defeat in WW1. WW2 was precipitated by Joos; if not caused by them. Then there is Joo-financed wars throughout middle-ages in Europe. The turmoil in middle east is just another chapter in Joo-History. I guess the folks commenting here just read sanitized American history text books. That's just a POV; not necessarily mine or original. George Macaca Allen 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. If there weren't murder victims, there wouldn't be murders. It's the fault of those damn victims! They ought to be in jail, how unfair and selfish that they're dead. Gzuckier 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish redux
In light of the media attention afforded to Allen's reaction to a question about his possible Jewish ancestry, the subsection added to the article this afternoon (George Felix Allen) is appropriate. Before, all we had was speculation about his possible roots, now we have something straight from Allen's mouth. Thus, I think it should be in the article. Now, regarding the specific wording of the subsection as it stands, I think that perhaps too much attention is paid to the speculative attempt to tie the possible ancestry to Macaca. The third and fourth paragraphs, while referenced, are merely speculative, or at least present more speculation than is necessary. The first two paragraphs of the subsection present the facts. I think we could trim all or most of the last two and end up with a more succinct, less speculative description. Anyone agree or disagree? · j e r s y k o   talk  · 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fourth paragraph in particular doesn't seem to belong there as the Macaca controversy is covered in the previous section. I'd say paragraph four could be dropped completely and paragraph three could be edited down as the two issues don't need any mixing. --StuffOfInterest 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this whole odd thing is getting a lot of random press, I thought that it should be added to this article Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, but I wasn't sure what the best way to describe it or if others think it is relevant so I was hoping for some other opinions. Remember 20:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Allen released a statement to The Forward today confirming his mother's speculated Jewish ethnicity. I've added it to this section of the article. --GGreeneVa 21:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Aforesaid paragraph regarding reasoning for what may be seen as overreacting to "aspersions" is not my speculation, as you point out, but is third person political speculation quoted from a reputable leftish publication and a reputable Jewish publication. His "clearing it up" doesn't dismiss the speculations, it is possibly the result of his having come to the same conclusions as the speculators, perhaps future events will show that one or the other of them was correct and there will be more to be said. Gzuckier 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Heritage confirmed
Today's Washington Post confirms what many people have been trying to include in this article for a long time, namely George Allen's Jewish Heritage.

Here is the article, entitled "Allen Says He Embraces His Jewish Ancestry": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901141.html

Frankly, certain members of this community have been attempting to keep this topic out of the article for a long time, even though substantial proof was presented in the past with numerous sources. Jersyko in particular went so far as to publically lambast posters and report them for "vandalism" for trying to include what has turned out to be factual information. I remember one article reference which he removed under the disingeuous pretext of it having as a source of information a Wikipage, which was misleading since the article only refered to Wikipedia and did not claim it as a source of information. This was not the only incident.

I think that Jersyko and a few other posters here owe the rest of the community an apology for keeping factual information out of this article for a very long time under very weak and frankly suspicious conditions.

As far as the article goes, all of Jersyko's edits should be rendered null and void as to the Jewish heritage question. His mother is Jewish. He is Jewish-American as a result. Those references must be restored since they are now confirmed facts.

Note: one does not need to be a practitioner of Judaism to be considered Jewish or Jewish-American. Jewish is an ethnic identity which need not correspond to a religious belief. That point, however, is moot now that Allen has embraced his Jewish heritage (see article above from the Washington Post).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.83.165.63 (talk • contribs). 03:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen the WaPo article and Allen's confirmation of his mother's ancestry and am glad that the whole thing was included in the article today. I owe no one an apology for working to keep it out of the article until now, however, as no sources have reported definitively on Allen's heritage until today.  In other words, it was never a fact until today.  Regarding your (apparent) attempt to persuade us to include it in the article again, perhaps you didn't notice that the article now contains a relevant subsection? ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that it has been added now, yes. I am sure this may come as a disappointment to you since you have worked so hard to keep information out of the article. However, I hope you have learned a lesson about truthful editing, especially during an ongoing election. If you do not want to post an apology, that is your right. However, in retrospect of you having reported other posters for vandalism when they were in fact only adding now-confirmed factual information into the article, don't you think you owe at least those victims of your now erroneous zeal an apology, Jersyko?

Perhaps an explanation as to why you were so vehemently opposed to exposing Allen's Jewish heritage would be in order, as well. I certainly hope that you are not allowing personal political opinions to cloud your judgement as you edit and write articles on Wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.83.165.63 (talk • contribs). 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, you've got me all wrong. I'm not an Allen fan at all.  Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about learning lessons.  There were attempts made to add the Jewish bit to the article before it was confirmed as true by anyone.  The original Forward source didn't confirm its truth, it merely speculated as to its possible truth.  If there's a lesson here, it's this: if you wait for a news story to develop before putting potentially true material in an article, time and further changes of circumstance will typically confirm or deny the story's truthfulness beyond any doubt.  As an example: if, on the day of an election, I posted "Joe Bob won the 2006 election" and cited to an exit poll that puts Joe Bob ahead, I've got a problem because it's not yet a fact that Joe Bob won (though there's certainly evidence that he did).  If, however, I wait until the winner is actually declared, then post "Joe Bob won the 2006 election" with a cite to the official result, I've faithfully followed Wikipedia's verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research policies and the reliable source guideline.  To finish this off, I'm glad the information is now confirmed and in the article.  It certainly is an interesting wrinkle for Allen, isn't it? ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that he was raised Christian, his mother was raised Christian, and he previously was unaware of his Jewish heritage, is "Jewish-American politicians" really appropriate?--Rosicrucian 05:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he was raised a christian but there is doubt about whether his mother was raised as a christian and if she was in fact a christian at all. Also, it seems rather unlikely that he was unaware of his Jewish heritage. The real question is ..does the category refer to ethnicity or religion. Jasper23 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Presently the only concrete statement we have is:
 * I was raised as a Christian and my mother was raised as a Christian. And I embrace and take great pride in every aspect of my diverse heritage, including my Lumbroso family line’s Jewish heritage, which I learned about from a recent magazine article and my mother confirmed.
 * So I'm not sure if we can speculate much from that.--Rosicrucian 05:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which of course makes you wonder why, if his mother was raised as a Christian, the church would make her promise to raise her children as Catholics before allowing her to marry in the church, and her response would be to forego marriage in a church and instead have a civil only marriage (in a Jewish home, no less). I'm not that much of an expert on Catholic marriages, but that all strikes me as a bit unusual.Gzuckier 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, he seems to take great pride in his Jewish heritage. He would probably appreciate being in the jewish-american politician category. Strange that his mom never told him.Jasper23 05:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is strange you think Sen. Allen is telling the truth.67.72.98.45 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lacking evidence to the contrary, we are not in a position to naysay him.--Rosicrucian 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the following sentence particularly interesting: Jewish leaders were divided over whether the characterization "aspersions" meant that Allen saw Jewish ancestry as something to be ashamed of.
 * So Allen gets broadsided by an inappropriate, unprofessional question by a member of the press, and some Wikipedia editor manages to turn the situation into Allen being some sort of bigot? Look, if you want to paint him as a bigot over the Macaca thing, you've got the goods.  But as he was (perhaps rightly) showing his frustration with the media's religion-baiting, I don't think we need to imply that he thinks being a Jew is "something to be ashamed of". Your comments are of course, welcome.Dubc0724 20:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I included a citation precisely so that no one would think it was "some Wikipedia editor" seeing bigotry in Allen's response. In what I added to the article, I wasn't implying that he thought Jewish ancestry was something to be ashamed of.  Instead, I wrote a sentence reporting the objective fact that his use of the word "aspersions" to characterize the question led other people to draw that conclusion.  My sentence noted as well that not everyone agreed.  You evidently side with the latter group.  I side with the former, but neither your opinion nor mine merits inclusion in the article.


 * Incidentally, I don't consider the reporter's question to be "religion-baiting". That phrase, to me, is like Allen's term "aspersions" in that it implies that a question about Jewish ancestry is some kind of slur or attack.  IMHO, the question was neither an aspersion nor religion-baiting.  I'm not saying it was the most important question for a reporter to ask in a debate like this one, but Allen himself was partly responsible for the interest in the subject, because of his repeated references to his maternal grandfather's internment by the Nazis. JamesMLane t c 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, it was religion-baiting. Religion is supposed to be separate from government in this country.  The reporter asked the question to try to get some type of response that could be used to create a soundbite and generate some more controversy.  And it worked, I guess.


 * But my original point was regarding how this whole thing had been turned around to try & paint Allen as someone who sees being called a Jew an insult. It just seems like someone wanted to take a cheap shot. Allen's already received significant (deserved) criticism for his actual mistakes (i.e., Macaca). I don't think we need to invent new ones. Dubc0724 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief. Look at the entire episode. He calls somebody "macaca". Nobody knows what that means, but he's accused of it meaning something racist. He defends himself against racism by saying his grandpa was imprisoned by the Nazis. A reporter follows up on that with "would you comment on your Jewish heritage?", a subject which he's never before mentioned. He reacts like.... well as though she had called him a macaca. Your take on it is that that was obviously religion baiting and it's normal to call a question about whether your grandpa who you just said was arrested by Nazis was a Jew, an "aspersion". Obviously, some respectable folks who make a living analyzing such things disagree; it's not exactly NPOV to toss out their opinions as inferior to yours. Gzuckier 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said at the bottom of this section, I'm done; it's not worth arguing about when people have made their minds. Have a field day... you can say Allen eats babies if you want. :-) Dubc0724 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole point of my response was that we're not inventing anything. We're reporting opinions that have been publicly expressed.  You're perfectly free to believe that some of those opinions are politically motivated cheap shots.  I feel the same way about quite a few of the attacks that the right wing made on Kerry.  Nevertheless, Wikipedia's coverage of a controversial public figure reflects the actual controversies, regardless of what individual Wikipedia editors think about the origins of those controversies. JamesMLane t c 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you personally are not "inventing" it. Maybe perpetuating it, but not inventing. I apologize for my overstatement. However, the inclusion is telling, both in the Washington Post and on Wikipedia.  The facts have been twisted around to somehow paint Allen as a bigot, when he was the one getting asked a bigoted question.  I can only imagine how this story would have been treated had Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi had been in the same situation. Dubc0724 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're phrasing your statement as if the reporter just popped-up out of the blue and asked "Are you a Jew?". That's not how it happened. The story had been investigated and reported elsewhere, and the Allen camp was trying to ignore it; this reporter just happened to catch Allen in an un-ignorable moment and when Allen flubbed the question, the story took flight in the greater media. I am having trouble seeing why the question was (as you claim) "bigoted", though. For a guy who runs on fairly traditional Right-Wing values, not the least of which is a healthy dose of Christian conservatism, knowing whether or not he is actually ethnically something else is useful information to which the electorate is entitled. Knowing how he responds under pressure is useful as well.


 * Atlant 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For a guy who runs on fairly traditional Right-Wing values, not the least of which is a healthy dose of Christian conservatism, knowing whether or not he is actually ethnically something else is useful information to which the electorate is entitled.


 * Are you suggesting that Republicans/conservatives wouldn't vote for someone who was "outed" as Jew? That's a bit of an ugly generalization, don't you think?  I find it interesting that the people so interested in his religion/ethnicity are the same people who are the self-appointed guardians of tolerance in the US.  But they seem to be the ones dividing people up into neat little groups.


 * Again, it would be telling to see how differently such a story would be treated if the person in question had a [D] by his name. I imagine it would have been treated with a bit more class. Dubc0724 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ?? Are you saying that there are no antisemites in America, or that they would not be supporters of somebody who transformed himself into a good ol' boy and hung out with the CCC], spiritual inheritors of the KKK? Gzuckier 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure there are anti-Semites in America. You people just want to say that all of them are Republicans.  As for the CCC thing, don't know anything about it.  Sounds like you're stretching to paint Allen as a Klansman.  More of the same... Dubc0724 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You don’t need to do any imagining. Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry are all Democrats who are not Jews by religion but who have some Jewish ancestors. None of them seemed to think that discussion of the subject constituted “making aspersions”.  None of them blew their stacks the way Allen did.


 * As for the inclusion of the subject: If you think the Washington Post and other media shouldn't have reported on the matter, take it up with them. Its inclusion on Wikipedia isn't "telling" -- if by that you mean to imply that Wikipedians who dislike Allen are including this only because of their dislike.   Once something gets this much attention, it's significant enough for Wikipedia to report.  We give the question Allen was asked, his response, notable opinions critical of his response, and notable opinions supportive of his response.  That's as it should be.  The reader can decide whether Allen's critics are twisting the facts or whether Allen really is a bigot. JamesMLane t c 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When were Albright, Clark, or Kerry broadsided by such a question during a debate? I'm all for "letting the reader decide", but the way it's currently written does not serve that purpose.  It serves the purpose of introducing implied(imaginary?) bigotry. Dubc0724 16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Albright wasn't broadsided in a debate. But she was surprised by a Washington Post article that examined her geneology and informed her of her jewish roots. . I will agree that while the story would not have been very noteworthy had Allen just said he had a jewish relative and moved on (or even mentioned this earlier).  It is the odd way in which this information came out, the audience's odd response to the question (booing at the person who asked if he had jewish heritage) and Allen's equally odd response that has given this story legs. Remember 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The Boston Globe hired a genealogist to untangle Mr. Kerry's roots and discovered that his grandfather, Frederick A. Kerry, who came to this country in 1905, was born as Fritz Kohn, the son of Jewish parents, in what was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Mr. Kohn converted to Catholicism when he changed his name to Kerry in 1902.
 * ''The Boston Globe hired a genealogist to untangle Mr. Kerry's roots and discovered that his grandfather, Frederick A. Kerry, who came to this country in 1905, was born as Fritz Kohn, the son of Jewish parents, in what was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Mr. Kohn converted to Catholicism when he changed his name to Kerry in 1902.


 * ''Mr. Kerry's paternal grandmother was also Jewish and changed her religion to Catholicism before marrying Mr. Kerry's grandfather. Mr. Kerry was raised a Catholic.


 * ''Mr. Kerry's office said today that the senator had long known, and talked about, the fact that his grandmother had been Jewish. But his aides said he was stunned to learn of the discovery about his grandfather. The Globe also reported details of how Mr. Kerry's grandfather had committed suicide at the Copley Plaza Hotel in Boston in 1921, shooting himself in the head in a restroom. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE5D91F38F936A35751C0A9659C8B63


 * That's when. In any event, pretending something was never noticed by others is just as much editorializing as pointing to it and shouting "look". Gzuckier 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite the same thing, but whatever. It's really not worth arguing about this anymore. You win... Dubc0724 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh...
Can anyone explain why the Jewish thing is a "controversy"? Why the fuck does it matter if he's Jewish or not? Why is this exchange even relevent to an encyclopedia article? Somone please explain. --198.185.18.207 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Short answer: because Democrats are racist hypocrites. Crockspot 16:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! read WP:CIV, WP:NPA, or WP:AGF lately?


 * Atlant 16:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just stating a well-known fact, that was directed at a political party, not at any Wikipedia editor. When was the last time you heard a Republican use the term Aunt Jemimah or house nigger? I'm sick of crap like the leftist jew-baiting that is going on here. Crockspot 16:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, most of us on that side of the issue are just suggesting that George embrace his Jewish heritage and move on. His supporters will still support him as readily as a Jew as they did when he was a Christian, of course, won't they?


 * Atlant 17:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course they will. Republicans don't make an issue of someone's religion or race. The other side does that, while hiding behind the old "just exposing Repug hypocricy" canard. It does actually expose hypocricy, just not the hypocricy of the intended targets. Crockspot 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One name for you, Jesse Helms. --StuffOfInterest 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh... Robert Byrd? If we're going to drag out dinosaurs, let me ask you which party's southern senators fought vehemently against civil rights legislation in the 1960's? (Democrats). And which party's senators brokered the deal that allowed the civil rights legislation to pass? (Republicans). Crockspot 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, most of those racist Dixiecrats later switched parties to become the current Republican majority.


 * Atlant 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So says you, but you haven't backed up that bs statement with any facts. You should be ashamed of some of the things you've stated on this page. And to have the balls to accuse me of personal attacks, when I have made statements no less of a broad brush than you yourself have made already. (I'm a republican, but I'm not a Christian, so much for your theory. So far, you haven't said anything that negates my theory.) I'm seriously thinking of starting an over-under pool on how large the radius of splatter will be when your head explodes after Condi "Aunt Jemimah" Rice and George "Jew boy" Allen are elected President and Vice President in 2008. Crockspot 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to my claim that the racist Dixiecrats became the current Republicans, just go read the Dixiecrats article. If you're referring to my (implied) claim that a significant segment of Republicans won't vote for a Jew, well, then answer my study question below: name a currently-elected Jewish Republican Senator other than Mr. Allen. I'm pretty sure the Democrats have all the other Jews (although we could debate whether Joe Lieberman really is a Democrat or not. ;-) ).


 * And, sorry to disappoint you, but I doubt that my head will explode over this issue, and I have no worries at all about Condi getting nominated by Republicans, let alone elected by Republicans in my lifetime. Libertarians would do it; Republicans wouldn't.


 * Atlant 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Not one of those guys is part of, as you put it, the "current Republican majority" in the Senate. They are all from a bygone era and have retired. At least none of them were members of the KKK like your boy Byrd. As for Condi's electability, you might be interested in this informal poll I took last year amongst Conservative Underground members. If us knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing freeper bushbots are willing to vote for her at nearly 90%, I think there's a problem with your theory. But Rosicrucian is correct, this discussion is not germane to the article. Stop over at CU for a full dismantling of your belief system, where I can tell you what I really think of you without violating the rules here. Crockspot 18:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any of this is germane to the issue at hand.--Rosicrucian 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * American Republicans like to elect White Christian Heterosexual Males. Allen just fell out of that category, plus it appears he was concealing his heritage, which makes people wonder why.


 * Study question: Are (well, "Were") there any non-Christian currently-elected Republican Senators?


 * Atlant 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say... but you didn't answer my question. How is this relevant to an encyclopedia article, and why is this a "controversy". --198.185.18.207 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a controversy because Allen has made it one by his actions. It is relevant to the encyclopedia article because it is currently occupying much of Allen's "newsspace" and may have serious effects upon his candidacy for re-election. As I said, much of his natural constituency may not now be quite as open to voting for him. You can see this in the way some of our more-Republican editors were trying to remove or at least soft pedal the fact of his Jewishness in this article.


 * Atlant 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "made it one by his actions"? What actions?  To me, he seemed to handle the reporter very well. The reporter seemed very bigoted, as if a Jew was a bad thing to be. Allen handled himself well. The "controversy" (which this is not) is that the reporter might dislike Jews, and should be censured for her dumb questions. --198.185.18.207 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The incident didn't begin with the reporter, it merely gained "legs" at that moment.


 * Atlant 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because it's gotten a fair amount of media attention in the last few days. Heck, Allen even posted on his campaign website about it. Certainly meets notability requirements for Wikipedia purposes. · j e r s y k o   talk  · 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe statements like "our more Republican editors" are really fair. Prior to this the statements about Allen's heritage were removed due to being unsourced, undersourced, or unreliably sourced. It hasn't been noteworthy or reliably explained until very, very recently. Myself, I think it's a nonissue and I'm no fan of Allen's. But I will agree that the recent press attention certainly makes it deserve a mention, if not necessarily a huge Macaca Controversy-esque section.--Rosicrucian 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to exclude yourself from that characterization if you wish. But I'm pretty sure that the fellow with Ronald Reagan's picture is not a Democrat ;-).


 * Atlant 16:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If abiding by WP:LIVING is "soft pedaling" then I guess I'm guilty.--RWR8189 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps -- but I'm a Democratic political consultant in Washington, and before this week I edited assertions of Allen's Jewishness out of the article. Confusing partisanship with objectivity does you no favors, and does editors like me a disservice; wherever my political sympathies lie, my agenda at Wikipedia amounts to sticking to confirmed facts -- no more, no less. --GGreeneVa 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Jewish-American Politicians Category. Should he be included? He is a Jewish-American and he is a politician. What do people think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasper23 (talk • contribs).


 * The answer to that question, of course, depends on exactly how the category is defined. Politicians who are Jewish? Or politicians who accept Judaism as their professed religion?


 * Atlant 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've said, it's a reach. He doesn't self-identify, and there has to be a point at which even if you have Jewish ancestors you're not Jewish. Over-inclusive, in my opinion. Especially if his mother was, as he claims, raised Christian.--Rosicrucian 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed the category covers 1. those who are current practicing Jews, 2. those who were once Jews but have converted, 3. and those who were raised a-religiously but who's parents were practicing Jews. Otherwise, including Kerry or Allen is misleading to people who wish to use Wikipedia as a reference tool.  Maybe a sub-category for politicians with Jewish ancestry is more appropriate, but already that's a vague statement, and according to Allen, he had no idea his Mother was Jewish until recently.


 * I would assume that the category includes ethnic jews. If so, then self-identification and his mother supposedly being raised a christian dont matter. Allen's mother was a Jew and by almost all definitions of Jewish, that I have seen, Allen is Jewish. So, how do we find out what the category covers?Jasper23 20:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The cat says it goes by Who is a Jew? so I guess that's our standard.--Rosicrucian 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So we should probably put him in.Who wants to do it. I cant.Jasper23 23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Allen doesn't really meet all of the criteria in that article. He has identified that he has Jewish heritage, but he has not identified himself as a Jew.  Until he does so, I don't think he should be in that category.--RWR8189 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He's there already.


 * Atlant 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee, let me think, who else considered anyone with a drop of Jewish heritage as "a Jew"... hmmm... thinking hard... oh yeah, Adolph Hitler. It's so special that Wikipedia (or at least some Wikipedians) is using the same criteria. Crockspot 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Really, while I can understand the "mother is a Jew" factor of matrilineal Jewish heritage, if his mother was raised Christian as he claimed, was nonpracticing, or converted, then it's really a reach. He has Jewish heritage, but he is not a Jewish-American by any reasonable standard.--Rosicrucian 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not even close to a reach. What George Allen claims about his mother beliefs have no impact on his ethnicity. His mother was/is Jewish, George Allen was/is Jewish. It really is that simple. Jasper23 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the gist of being "Jewish" for Wikipedia purposes (or being "Italian-American", "Irish-American", etc.) (you can see this mentioned at the top of Talk:List of British Jews, although it needn't be because it's basic Wiki policy anyway) If a reputable source called a person "Jewish", regardless of whether that person's mother, father, or paternal great-grandfather was or was not Jewish, then they are Jewish for Wikipedia purposes unless there is an equally or more reliable source that says they are "not Jewish". This is the same for any X-American label, or, in fact, any label (so for example, Jasper above can not pull out and say "His mother was/is Jewish, George Allen was/is Jewish. It really is that simple" in the article unless a reputable source on George Allen specifically - not on who is a Jew - made that claim). I believe there are sources - mostly excited headlines, stuff like - that call George Felix Allen "Jewish", therefore it is fine under WP:V and WP:NOR. If a reliable source calls a person "Jewish", regardless of who their mother was or was not, Wikipedia can (and should?) call them that, Mad Jack 08:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is no such simple "gist" for Wikipedia purposes. The problem is that "Jewish-American" is unlike "Italian-American" and "Irish-American". The latter two are purely ethnic and refer to the person's descent.  "Jewish" has aspects of ethnicity and of religion.  Thus, a case can be made for applying the term to Allen -- whose mother is of Jewish ancestry but who doesn't identify as Jewish and actively practices a different religion; a case can also be made for including Sammy Davis, Jr. -- who has no known Jewish ancestors but who converted to the religion of Judaism.  The issue has been raised on Category talk:Jewish-Americans.  I personally think that the category and its subcategories all need to be split, but this solution hasn't found widespread favor.  Until it does, we will be conveying the false impression that Allen and Davis share either their ancestry or their religious beliefs.


 * Regardless of the clunkiness of Wikipedia's current categorization scheme, this exchange has received enough public attention that it merits inclusion. One reason, currently missing from the article, is that Allen angered some Jews by characterizing the question as an "aspersion", implying that he thought there was something shameful about being Jewish.  I'll add that point, with a citation. JamesMLane t c 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point we are less debating whether we should include the stuff about the news attention, and more debating whether the cat is reaching, I think.--Rosicrucian 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a "gist" - calling a person "Jewish", just like calling them "Italian-American", either passes WP:V or it doesn't - i.e. we can verify that they have been identified as such by a reliable source or we can't. Remember, it's all about what a source says. "A person identifies/doesn't identify/practices/doesn't practice/has this ancestor/doesn't/etc. therefor is/is not Jewish" would be the opinion of whichever Wiki editor. Even if that opinion reflects a popular definition of "Jewish", it would remain the editor's opinion unless and until used by a reliable source exactly on that particular person. Therefore, no, not every person with a drop of Italian blood is Italian-American, and not every person who had a Jewish great-great-great-grandmother through the maternal line is Jewish while a person who did not is not. It's all about what the sources on that particular person say, regardless of definitions. Mad Jack 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think self-identification still plays a role, in fact a bigger role than WP:RS in this case. If it were revealed that George Allen has a Nigerian ancestor or an ancestor from Tierra del Fuego or from...wherever in the distant past which made him 1/256th Nigerian or Chilean or whatever, there would be no denying his ancestry from these locations.  WP:RS would be sufficient.  The same is true with his Jewish ancestry.  There appears to be no doubt, based on the reliable sources provided here and elsewhere, that he has Sephardic Jewish ancestry.  However, he does not practice Judaism, nor did his parents.  Because he does not identify as a Jew, AND because the majority of his ancestry does not appear to be Jewish, it would be most approprite for us to say that he self-identifies as a Presbyterian and he has Jewish ancestry.  Furthermore, self-identification is not only commonly used in this case, but it is used even for questions of race by the U.S. Census Bureau, so it's not much of a stretch at all to say that George Allen doesn't self-identify as a Jew, but has (verifiable) Jewish ancestry. Ufwuct 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I would like to point out that Allen's mother being Jewish was actually inserted into this article on July 1, which is interesting because that's two months before Allen supposedly found out about it from his mother. I am not sure, but I suspect that if not for that edit, which was not removed for two months and which was likely noticed by the Forward, perhaps inspiring this initial story, this whole "ancestry revelation" may not have happened, at least not so quickly. I could be wrong - but.... Mad Jack 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So as long a reliable source calls somebody Jewish, that's all that's needed for it to be included in Wikipedia? Your above post seems to suggest that this story was started when a source picked up this information from Wikipedia.  Is this also standard procedure per WP:RS? Ufwuct 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply to both your posts here. Of course self-identification plays a part. If a source calls someone "Jewish" but the person actually says "I am not Jewish" that obviously trumps the opinion of any external source. If George Allen makes such a comment then he should not be listed as Jewish. However, since dislosing his mother's ancestry he has not said "I am not Jewish" or anything of the like, though he has said that he was "proud" of his ancestries. Since a few reliable sources have identified him as "Jewish" - rather than, say, having Jewish ancestry - mostly in breathless headlines - there's no problem listing him as such. "So as long a reliable source calls somebody Jewish, that's all that's needed for it to be included in Wikipedia?" Yes, unless directly contradicted by an equally or more reliable source. And I do mean reliable sources under WP:RS. This is the criterion for putting anything on Wikipedia - that it has been first reported in that exact way by a reliable source. And yes, that's what I was suggesting - that someone from the Forward or somewhere saw this mention on Wikipedia and did some research - leading to the question at the press conference, etc. It's a case of something that probably did not pass WP:RS being put on Wikipedia, and leading eventually to something that did pass WP:V. Should it have been allowed to be on here for two months (it was only removed in late August after the Forward story)? Of course not, but that raises the issue that editors need keep close watch on what is added and whether it is reliably sourced. Mad Jack 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this at least insofar as it's intended to avoid OR.--Rosicrucian 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the thread originating from your second post (that I addressed), thank you for clearing this up, not just for me, but for others reading this page. I'm almost inclined to agree with it as well, though I wouldn't want to see Wikipedia to get into the habit of starting news stories (not counting Wikinews) which turn out to be true, even if only by accident.  Though, I know you're not suggesting anything like this, so I'm not worried.
 * Regarding your other point, I agree that he has embraced his Jewish heritage. However, I suppose a contradictory but reliable source would be the many ones that list him as Presbyterian.  Also, the source that asserts (Wash. Post, Sept. 19) that Allen would be considered Jewish by lineage is contradicted by the assertion by Allen himself that his mother was not raised Jewish.  I haven't read every word of each of the sources (62-67). Maybe it would help if you could tell me what source specifically calls him either a "Jewish-American" or a "Jew".  Then, maybe we could have a more specific and focused discussion.
 * Third, thank you for you civil response to me. Ufwuct 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion of reliable sources must take account of the ambiguous nature of characterizing someone as "Jewish" -- it can refer to ethnicity or to religious belief and practice. For example, Mad Jack wrote:
 * "If a source calls someone 'Jewish' but the person actually says 'I am not Jewish' that obviously trumps the opinion of any external source. If George Allen makes such a comment then he should not be listed as Jewish."
 * I disagree. Jewishness as an ethnicity is an objective fact.  If I were to say, "I'm not an Irish-American," that statement wouldn't trump any external source.  My ancestors were from County Kerry regardless of what I say.
 * Nor can we say, "It's all about what the sources on that particular person say, regardless of definitions." Different sources are using different definitions and we have to recognize that.  For example, as to the person with a Jewish great-great-great-grandmother through the maternal line, the objective fact is that there's a widely used (hence notable) definition of Jewishness by which that person is Jewish.  I can't tell from our article on the Law of Return whether that person would have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship, but it seems clear that Allen would have such a right (unlike most American Presbyterians!).  Nevertheless, while we report his partial Jewish ethnicity as one fact about him, we have to do it in a way that doesn't give a false impression about his religious beliefs and practices. (Although it's not relevant here, I'd add that, even as to a subject's own religion, his or her statement wouldn't necessarily trump external sources.  There might be a dispute in which a politician secretly practices Satanism while publicly lying about the subject.) JamesMLane t c 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one's "Irish-Americaness" is certainly a matter of culture, self-identification, and ethnicity, not just ethnicity. Obviously, not every person with a drop of Irish blood is Irish-American. If a person says they are "not Jewish", then they aren't (Well, unless they are lying and consider themselves Jewish in secret). It doesn't matter what certain Jewish denominations say they are or not (for example, Allen is Jewish by Orthodox standards, but he is not Jewish by the standards of the largest US denomination, Reform). For example, certain Mormon demoninatins baptize dead Jews into Mormonism - does that suddenly make those people "Mormon"? In any case, it's pointless to have this discussion. All we need, and all Wikipedia articles ever need, are sources that comment on the specific subject (especially since X-Americaness is so complicated) - so - not sources that comment on who is a Jew - but rather sources that comment on whether George Allen is Jewish or not - regardless of the standards they use. In this case, we do have these sources that call him "Jewish", so I guess that's fine for his inclusion in the category until we get more discussion in the media on this - or if George Allen says that he is or is not Jewish. Mad Jack 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and replying to Ufwuct, at the moment, after a brief Google search, I could find the following sources that call him "Jewish": ("Sen. George Allen: The Good Old Boy Is Jewish"),  ("from Allen explaining how being Jewish is just an interesting nuance to his background") - I didn't skim through more of the articles, but I'd imagine there would be more as this story continues in the media Mad Jack 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can find better sources than those. The first is an editorial with "...The Good Old Boy Is Jewish" in the title; the second says "He had a noose in his office for Christ's sake" and also refers to him by the middle name of " 'Macaca' ", so it is far from a dispassionate account.  I would like to see the sources that say he is "Jewish" "a Jewish-American", or "a Jew", rather than refering to his ancestry (for which we now have plenty of sources).  Then, let's discuss these rather than your "brief Google search".


 * And more to Ufwuct - according to his mother's interview yesterday - she was raised Jewish, not Christian - and doesn't look like she ever converted to Christianity - just for the record. Being "Presbyterian" doesn't necessarily cancel out being "Jewish" (i.e. Kathie Lee Gifford calls herself "Russian Jewish" but also a "born-again Christian"). Though being "Not Jewish" according to a source cancels out being "Jewish". I guess I'm making it sound complicated Mad Jack 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Inclined to agree regarding Kathie Lee Gifford. She is a born-again Christian but also a Russian Jew.  Are you talking about this source for the interview?Ufwuct 20:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Upbringing as a Jew" conflicts with his story and now seems to change the situation. Without calling the guy a liar, I'm still inclined to agree with Rosicrucian's assessment. The other source that asserted that he is Jewish by lineage  (#64) now longer appears to be making such a leap (whether or not Dana Milbank was making a leap at the time, it now appears to be more accurate and relevant).  However, I still wouldn't want to go beyond saying what Dana Milbank said, that according to traditional rabbinic law, he's considered Jewish, but doesn't self-identify (or hasn't yet).  Thanks. Ufwuct 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the interview with his mother I was talking about, which seems to refute his statements that his mother was raised - or in fact - ever was - Christian. I thought the "The Good Old Boy Is Jewish" was good enough, but maybe you are right. Maybe the category shouldn't be there at the moment if we can not get better sources. Also the "Scots-Irish American" category should probably be removed too, because Googling that, I couldn't find anything that calls Allen Scots-Irish or Scots-Irish American (and it's unsourced in our article). Mad Jack 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

More random info on Allen's heritage
The Washington Post has another article on Allen's heritage and how he found out about it in August before the debate. . Some of this information should probably be added to the article to give a better timeline and the perspective of Allen's mother. Remember 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that. I saw the article and it mentioned explicitly that Allen's mother was raised Jewish, which wasn't in our article. Mad Jack 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if Etty Allen says she was raised Jewish, she can easily be considered more of a reliable source than her son on that particular point.--Rosicrucian 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely. That article gives the blow-by-blow - mother raised Jewish, kind of put her background behind her when marrying a Christian in a heavily Christian area, doesn't tell children, etc. It explains also why Allen made the reply he did to that report (Fox). Mad Jack 20:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Even more random information Evidently, Allen had an interview last night with CNN where he talks more about this issue and other stuff. See Video of interview on Wonkette. I tried to find some video of the whole thing or a transcript of the whole thing since there would probably be some more information to help clear up this story, but I have yet to find it. Remember 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag and Protection
Why does this article still have the disputed nuetrality tag and why did people protect this article? I would like to see both removed if we could get that accomplished. Remember 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking of requesting removal of the semi-protection this morning, until I found out about the creation of another sockpuppet was created by the user/puppetmaster (User:Macaca) (also see Articles_for_deletion/MacacaGate). It looks like this user is still active and trying to push POV, this time in the form of a POV fork, because he/she couldn't get his/her way on the main article.  We're currently having a discussion about whether Allen should be included in Category:Jewish-American politicians, a topic in which this blocked user was very interested.  Let's see how this pans out.
 * Regarding the neutrality tag, I personnally feel that we've made a lot of progress towards making the article more neutral, but I haven't assessed the article in its entirety for awhile so I'm not sure if all of the POV concerns have been addressed yet. Look at the archived talk page to see if there's any POV concerns that you feel you could address yourself.  Thanks.  Ufwuct 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, protection tags are removed automatically after a certain period of time if the vandalism has stopped. As for the Neutrality tag, I think we've improved the article enough that we should be able to put up a quick vote on removing it soon enough.--Rosicrucian 22:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, let us put it to a vote then. Does anybody object to removing the neutrality tag? Remember 23:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support removal. I think it's been fine, NPOV-wise, since this. ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 00:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support removal as well.--Rosicrucian 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support removal. On a side note, it'd be super sweet if someone could source and add a bit about Allen's abolition of parole to the section on his term as governor. --GGreeneVa 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I of course support removal since I brought it up.Remember 03:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support removal of neutrality tag. I took a quick look at the article and the undue weight issues seem to have been taken care of. Also, most of the POV-pushers seem to have lost interest.  Let's (all of us, both "sides") still be vigilant in ensuring NPOV, especially until November. Ufwuct 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support removal.--WaldoJ 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support removal. John Broughton 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Arbusto 21:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Result: 8-0, Support. This appears to be enough consensus.  Close informal poll and remove tag? Ufwuct 18:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I say yes and I will do so now. Anybody that wants to bring up the issue again can do it here and we can discuss it. Remember 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Body armor
Anyone care to comment on this? To attempt to nip this in the bud yet again, I am NOT an Allen fan. I'm merely attempting to make sure that this article adheres to Wikipedia policy. I don't think the section I removed from the article was anywhere close to adhereing to WP:NPOV, and I'm not sure it belongs in the article anyway (instead of the 2006 election article). If other editors think it is notable enough (I have no opinion in that regard), I would not be opposed to including a neutrally-worded section about this thing in whichever article is deemed appropriate. But we need to answer these questions first, I think. · j e r s y k o   talk  · 04:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw it and was wondering if anyone else was thinking what I was thinking. Please don't ever feel like you have to pledge allegiance to one side or the other, but if you feel like you want to pick sides or to announce neutrality, go ahead.  If someone feels the need to make assumptions about me, it's fine as long as they're reasonable civil.  Getting back on topic, I don't think more than a sentence would belong in this article, if anything at all.  The primary reason why the issue seems to have come up is the election (election cycle --> Vote Vets PAC ad --> AZ article + FactCheck --> MediaMatters "debunking"), so it belongs in the election article.  It seems like a lot of OR leaps in order to tie the pieces together.  Especially where a Wikipedia editor believes one source over two others.  I don't think Factcheck.org is known as a Republican outfit either, so I don't know what their motivation would be to lie.  Also, I don't know if this entire topic can be called controversy quite yet, except as an OR leap.  If a major news source picks it up, then I'd call it controversy. Ufwuct 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This talk page seems a bit too "us vs. them" at times, and I've been accused, more than once, of being part of one "side" when all I really want is for this article to adhere to policy.  My point in denying that i'm on one particular "side" here is to prevent the subject from coming up again. ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you act reasonably and according to the rules, reasonable editors will notice and the rest...you shouldn't worry about it too much. Ufwuct 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, though. I do feel passionately about some things. But I try to stay out of the fray, as it's no fun getting too worked up about it here (which is why many of my edits are on less controversial topics like interstates and Greenland).  I will definitely pick sides in some other elections, but I've seen enough negative info to dissuade me from being enthusiastic about either Webb or Allen.  Cheers! Ufwuct 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)