Talk:George Allen (American politician)/Archive 4

Infoboxes
It is important to state the current state of events, not what will happen soon. As such, the Senator is still in office, and has not been succeeded yet. Stealthound 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball
Please consult this source, (Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball) before changing the "Succeeded by" sections of the article. This is the official position of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, predicting what will happen in the future. As the Senator is still in office, the article should be left as it is. Thank you, Stealthound 09:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP!
Before anyone adds categories like "racism" to the article again, please be sure to read WP:BLP thoroughly as well as the brief information at the head of this talk page. I have no problem with well-source allegations being put into the article, but throwing someone into a category feels a lot different to me; there's no sourcing, and no explanation of what it measns to be put into the category. I'd very likely remove such an addition as a violation of WP:BLP (an official policy of the encyclopedia) and would encourage others to remove this as well.

Atlant 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnote in infobox
Not a big deal at all, but I think the footnote about Allen's successor should be a wiki ref. I had converted it, but Stealthound reverted, saying that keeping the footnote in the infobox had kept changes to a minimum. To be clear, I don't want to remove the footnote, I just want to wikify it, so when you click on the 1, it'll take you to the note. Personally, I think having the wiki-linked footnote is more accessible, because you don't have to hunt around for where the actual note is (I don't find it at all intuitive for the note to be at the bottom of the box; I would expect it to be at the bottom of the page). I also think it looks better, keeps the style standard, and is just as clear, if not more so. The use of subscript for the reference is confusing to me. Schi 18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The use of footnotes in Infoboxes is not unheard of, such as Democratic Party (United States). The use on each of the Senators' pages is to provide an easy reference to the casual browser of wikipedia, many of which are not acquainted with political science. Also, for a casual browser, a reference that is easily seen is more likely to keep the article intact, and therefore preferred. Stealthound 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did convert sub to sup, though. Stealthound 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Archived
Trimmed us down to current discussions. Old discussions are in the third archive.--Rosicrucian 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish categories
I removed the Jewish categories per WP:BLP, which states:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: Crockspot 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life


 * Well, I believe that his Jewishness is more a state of ethnicity than belief. So I believe that your rational for removal is not really that strong. That being said, I don't really care too much one way or another. Jasper23 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My rationale is based upon the section of WP:BLP that I quoted above, which requires that BOTH of those criteria be met before a category dealing with religion or sexual orientation is used. The second bullet is debatable, but the first bullet is certainly not met. Allen does not self-identify as a Jew, but as a Presbyterian. His mother might self-identify as a Jew, and as I stated in my edit summary, the category may be appropriate for an article about his mother, but it is inappropriate for this article. There really is no question about it. Crockspot 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ethnicity does not equal religion. This is not about religion or sexual orientation. There really is no question about it. Jasper23 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a Jewish-American implies a religious belief. Further, insertion of the category is intended to make the subject "look bad", which is also expressly forbidden in WP:BLP. I have full confidence in my interpretation, and will revert if the categories are added back in, without further discussion. Crockspot 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I will just say that I disagree with your opinion. However, I must ask you to lighten up. No need to be so defensive. Anyway, as previously stated, I don't really care. Have fun having full confidence in your interpretation. Jasper23 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not defensiveness, it's assertiveness. BLP Patrol is a thankless job, but it has to be done. Being bold and assertive is pretty much a necessary trait. Crockspot 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, sure. Jasper23 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't make me come over there, you two. Anyone else vaguely remember a discussion of the categories on this page? I have no idea what the consensus was, however. In any event, I'm ok with their removal. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reinserted "Category:Sephardi Jews" because it has as much relevance as the other category pertaining to his heritage ("Category:Scots-Irish Americans") -- however, I've left out "Category:Jewish American politicians" as a compromise even though that should be there too, even though he is not a RELIGIOUS Jew but an ETHNIC one. User:Crockspot seems to be confusing ethnic/racial heritage and RELIGION; also, User:Crockspot, there is absolutely no truth in your statement that "insertion of the category is intended to make the subject 'look bad,' " as we only seek to categorize his ethnic (remember, NOT religious) heritage. I don't think User:Crockspot understands that even if a Jew or his family abandons the Judaism (the religion of the Jewish people), that person is still a Jew ETHNICALLY, but not RELIGIOUSLY. Regarding the criteria above, "Category:Sephardi Jews" fits in because Allen 'publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question' when he said: "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". Regarding the second criteria ('subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life'), there was the whole controversy regarding his heritage when it was brought to light during his campaign because of some allegly 'racist' remarks he made, as he used a slur common in North Africa where his mother's Sephardic Jewish family hailed from. Again, "Category:Sephardi Jews" is no different than other ethnic classifications such as "German-Americans" or "Scots-Irish Americans" -- it's only because being 'being Jewish' is BOTH an ethnic and religious classification that people are still so confused about it. In Allen's case, however, this only pertains to his ethnicity, as multiple categories already exist for his Christian religious beliefs. --172.144.250.61 10:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to anon; We're not in the business of calling out Senator Allen as a Jew. This comes across to me as too much like making him wear the Star of David on his shoulder.... not a good thing to do.  I've commented out the categories regarding him being a Scottish-American, Presbyterian and being a Sephardi Jew to allay the excuse that since the first two categories are listed, his ethnic Jewishness becomes fair game.  I don't think it is fair game under the broad meaning of WP:BLP. Mytwocents 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Wikipedia isn't in the business of tracing bloodlines.  It's one thing to be raised by parents who (presumably) talk about their heritage, and so influence the person about who the article is about, but that's not the case here.  John Broughton  |  Talk 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So we should pull all ethnic categories out of all articles or just this one?Jasper23 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents: the people here at Wikipedia are not "calling out Senator Allen as a Jew," as this is already public knowledge and has been for months now. It is now widely known and commented upon; indeed, it was a bit of a minor controversy when it was first brought to light as I'm sure you know, thus it is important and definitely deserves to stay in this article. Plus, it's stated clearly early on in the article that he has Jewish heritage on his mother's side, officially making him an ethnic (but not religious) Jew -- so why is the category such an issue here? The "Category:Scots-Irish American" pertains to his ethnic status on his father's side, "Category:American Presbyterians" pertains to his RELIGION, and "Category:Sephardi Jew" pertains to his ethnic status on his mother's side. If anything, Allen's biography is a wonderful example of the ethnic and religious diversity found amongst so many Americans...yet some of you here seem to want to 'hide' the Jewish side of his ethnic/racial heritage, as you all are obviously trying to whitewash it (for whatever reason...?).

John Broughton: Wikipedia isn't "tracing bloodlines," just reporting said bloodlines that have already been traced and reliably verified by others. As Jasper23 says, why should categories pertaining to a person's ethnic/racial and /or religious status be allowed to stay in almost all other articles and be stripped from this particular one, especially when Allen's ethnic heritage on his mother's side was, as said, a bit of a controversy when it was brought to light. I still think that "Category:Jewish American politicians" should be on this page because he IS technically a Jew, especially since "Category:Presbyterian politicians" is already a category here. --172.149.22.40 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Since Category:Sephardi Jews will probably soon be renamed to Category:People of Sephardic ancestry, I am inclined to leave that cat in place, but I am removing Category:Jewish American politicians per WP:BLP, already discussed above. Crockspot 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the guideline that opens this section? Allen self-identifies as a Presbyterian. He does not self-identify as a Jew, nor was he even aware of his mother's "jewishness" until recently. No one is calling for the removal of the material about his mother from the article. But it is inappropriate to use those labels on him. - Crockspot 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted again. I left the Sephartic category, and that is the compromise I am willing to make. I will revert the other cat per WP:BLP indefinitely, until Allen self-identifies as a Jew. Crockspot 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever looked at the Jewish Politicians Category? You know he does qualify. Jasper23 23:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I commented out the racial/ethnic and ethnic categories again. We need to reach a consensus on including them in the article. Under WP:BLP, I think the burden is on those who wish to include them.  Also, I think semi-protection on the page may be in order.  This will limit any revisions to logged-in users, anon's could still weigh in on the talk page.  I mention semi-protection as a idea to head off any edit-warring by anon ip's, but I'm open to not using it also.  Mytwocents 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden is on those who want to remove this after consensus was reached months ago. Also, I don't believe page protection is necessary.Jasper23 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is squarely on the shoulders of the party wishing to include, per WP:BLP. Since the Sephartic category is under CfD to rename it to specify sephartic ancestry, I have no problem leaving that category. But I HAVE looked at Category:Jewish American politicians, and it has no description at all. The implication is that Allen is "a Jew". For him to be "a Jew", he would have to renounce his Christianity and convert to Judaism. He may be of jewish ancestry, but he is not a jew. Until he is, that cat stays out. It's a blockable violation of WP:BLP to keep reinserting it. - Crockspot 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Crockspot seems to gravely misunderstand what "Jewishness" entails, in both the religious and ethnic senses. The statement "For him to be "a Jew", he would have to renounce his Christianity and convert to Judaism" is simply false under any definition. For example, most of the definitions under Who is a Jew? have nothing to do with religious practice and everything to do with ancestry. This includes the traditional halachiac definition of a Jew (used by the Orthodox and Conservative denominations, as well as the state of Israel), in which any person whose mother is Jewish (and for the mother to be Jewish, her mother would have to be Jewish and so on) is considered a Jew, regardless of their religious affiliation. Under that definition, for example, Allen is Jewish (while say, John Kerry would not be). I don't know what BLP has to do with anything because being Jewish, especially in an increasingly secular world, is a matter of ethnicity and culture. "BLP" can't be used to wipe away Jewish ethnicity from Wikipedia, especially since we have articles like Jewish ethnic divisions. As for sources, The Forward even picked George Allen in its list of most influential Jewish Americans of 2006. The only thing that seemingly is keeping him out of this category is Crockspot's own opinion and nothing else. Cauldron King 09:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right User:Cauldron King -- User:Crockspot STILL doesn't understand that "being a Jew" is as much about ethnicity as it is about religion. In many respects, it is actually MORE about ethnicity than religion, as most modern Jews are entirely secular (non-religious), especially in Israel and the USA; I repeat: even if a Jew gives up Judaism (the RELIGION of the JEWISH PEOPLE), he/she still remains a Jew ETHNICALLY. Well, who cares though: you can't argue with someone that obviously has no idea what he is talking about, as they clearly don't know much about Jews, Judaism, or 'being Jewish.' Forget it: we'll just add the categories back in later on when Crockspot has forgotten about this article.  --172.148.157.252 14:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been staying out of this conversation because I didn't think it was important enough to throw my hat in, but I did want to note that comments like the last one by 172.148.157.252 have no place here. Please read Wikipedia's no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith policies. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And that gets to the heart of the matter really. We have one anon editor adding Jewish categories to this and other articles.,,  This is bound to stir debate here because it looks like we are labeling Allen as a Jew and pointing out his bloodline, when such a thing isn't warranted.  We all welcome an open, inclusive, debate here.  Let's not get drawn-in to a argument on who is a Jew and who isn't. That's covered in the article.  This is about an anon who wants to catorgize Allen as a Jew.  That's a new, and I think wrong thing to do.  Mytwocents 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness, please stop misrepresenting what is happening here. The one anon editor you mention is trying to restore a category and not add a new one. This category was placed on the page following a consensus of editors on the page. You may want to check this articles recent history or the discussion on this very talk page. Jasper23 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of POV and fairness, either ALL of the verified categories regarding Allen stay in the article, or NONE of them can stay. However, if we leave all of them out, that will make this article an exception to Wikipedia norms rather than keeping it in line with the categorization procedures of other articles, most of which clearly categorize people according to their ethnic/racial and/or religious identities if this information is available. People can't arbitrarily pick-and-choose which categories stay, because all of them are fully valid and have been verified by reliable external sources. There is no 'labeling' going on here, just categorization and displaying the (widely available) facts. Mytwocents you are correct: I've added categories to other articles dealing with Jewish people as an Anon-user, and will continue to do so. If you think I am being anti-Semitic you are entirely mistaken (I detect some of that here), because I have partial Jewish heritage in my family. --172.162.149.222 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Two alternative meanings: ethnicity and religion
The definition of Category:Jewish Americans states that it includes "Americans of Jewish heritage, or adherents of Judaism." Because of this category's dual nature, it's not perfectly comparable to either being a Presbyterian or being an Italian-American, though it has aspects of both. As for the prior discussion that jerseyko asked about, the question is touched on in some of the threads in Talk:George Felix Allen/Archive 2, although there's more of a focus on how the article should cover the emergence during the campaign of Allen's mother's ethnic background. JamesMLane t c 09:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going on wikiholiday until the new year, but I just wanted to say that I do understand the dual nature of being a Jew. That is why I do not object to the Sephartic category. Does that not well-cover the ethnic angle? (especially after the name-chage that will probably occur). Have fun. - Crockspot 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Sen. George Allen's Jewish roots have everything to do with his mother's ethnicity, not her religion. Being Jewish isn't just a function of religious affinity. It's in the genes." -- from the Washington Post —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.132.143.100 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Restored categories
Is there a compelling argument for keeping them off the page? Lay it out. Jasper23 20:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a compelling reason for keeping them on the page when the subject of the article does not and never has identified himself as Jewish? --StuffOfInterest 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He has stated that he is proud of his jewish heritage. Check the article. Anything else? Jasper23 20:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP there needs to be a compelling argument for leaving any racial, ethinic or religious catagories in. The burden is on those who want to catorgorise Senator Allen as a Jew, Scots-Irish, Presbyterian etc. I'm reverting per WP:BLP  Mytwocents 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a compelling reason, the Jewish category is true. It is factual and sourced. Why is him being of Jewish ancestry such a big issue? Is there something wrong with having Jewish ancestry? Also, are you saying that he is not a Presbyterian. Remove all categories on the page or none. Hell, remove all categories on this page and then all ethnic, racial and religious categories from all of Wikipedia.Jasper23 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have commented out all religious and racial categories for that reason. It's probably not relevant to catorgorise Senator Allen under any ethnic or religious list. I have left it on the page to be seen by editors that there is a WP:BLP issue about such categories and point them to the talk page to see the thread and discuss it. Mytwocents 21:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? There is no WP:BLP issue. If there is, please tell me what it is. This a sourced and verifiable category. Why not include it? Can anyone give me an answer? Jasper23 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As for me Jasper, please see my '18:47, 17 December 2006' comment above for my take on the category disscussion. Mytwocents 21:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense. You don't want to use categories to categorize people? That is your argument?Jasper23 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

These types of categories seem silly to me. The articles should explain the details, and it should be left at that, imo. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm more than a little mystified that we're still going back and forth on this now that he's no longer a senator. I'd hoped the page could undergo a well-deserved trimming in the aftermath of the election, but we're still arguing over whether he's Jewish or not.--Rosicrucian 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Red links
I dewikilinked a couple of red links, ones that are very unlikely to ever have articles (like the maiden name of Allen's first wife). I left others that may some day have articles, like names of former Congressional seatholders. - Crockspot 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Lead Section
I would hope that we could rewrite the lead section to also include the fact that he served as Governor. Currently it is buried a few lines down:

"Allen served Virginia in the state legislature, as Governor, and in both bodies of the U.S. Congress"

Furthermore isn't that line incorrect? Is the Governor a part of the state legislature? I believed the Governor was the State's Executive Branch. Mecil 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Many called him Senator Macaca? Macacawitz? No evidence cited!!!
There is no evidence cited in this article to support the apparently partisan contention that many people called Allen Senator Macaca and Macacawitz. The citations offered in support of this claim refer to individual instances, hardly the "many bloggers and comedians, and some commentators" the article refers to. I nominate this sentence for temporary deletion pending better supporting documentation.

Let me know if you have any supporting documentation for this. In the meantime, I'll do a little search for it myself and revisit later today. Thanks.

Adam Holland 15:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick googling of "senator macaca" shows multiple blogger references. Maybe the "some commentators" is a bit of a stretch. I propose removing the commentators reference, and linking to multiple blog references of the term in the footnotes.

With respect to "Macacawitz", the source of this term may be GOP staffers. From the New Republic blog:

According to spy at a GOP hill-staffer bash on Friday, there's a new nickname for George Allen circulating in Republican circles: "Senator Macacawitz." When you're an object of ridicule among the Republicans you seek to lead, it's probably better to just turn the reins over to Jim Webb.

--Spencer Ackerman

There was also a Democratic organizer who quit after using the term in a publicly disseminiated email. Neither the anonymous report of the GOP staffers using it, nor the single Democratic use of the term would seem to merit the attention of this article. I propose taking this reference out.

Adam Holland 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed external links
Per WP:EL, only very important links should be the EL section. I removed the following, which might be useful for improving the article (if not already used, and if info isn't already in article - I didn't look); I'm listing them here as possible sources.


 * The Political Environment Isn't George Allen's Friend from The Rothenberg Political Report
 * Democratic Activist Claims Abuse by Allen's Staffers – Washington Post, November 1, 2006
 * New 'N Word' Woe For George Allen, CBS News, September 26, 2006
 * Allen Staffers Beat Up Blogger, Nation Celebrates – includes video
 * I am Macaca: How an Indian-American changed the vote in Virginia

-- Bigger bolder banner-bringer (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Macaca
This article states that "Macaca is not a racial slur." It links the word to the Wikipedia article on Macaca ... the actual link states that it is a slur, and the first text in the article states:

This article is about the racial slur. For the monkey, see Macaque.

Macaca[1] is a pejorative epithet used by francophone colonialists in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population

I submit that the Macaca article is authoritative on the subject matter, so this article should not attempt to change the meaning of the term. I will edit the text of this article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.231.85 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

race slur senator
I re-added the reference to "race slur senator in the international press" to the article. First off, the reference is a news story not a opinion column. Second, the article is clearly relevant to the campaign, living in the area, when he announced his candidacy they threw that article on the screen which is how I learned about it. So although the program isn't online, it was already being referenced on TV (which I know is cheezy to have to use that), which would seem to indicate its interest to the 2012 campaign. I will not engage in an edit war on this and seek agreement moving forward. WikiManOne 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article in question is clearly an opinion column. I don't even know how to debate the point - the phrasing is obviously what would appear in the commentary section, not the news section.  But regardless of that, if you google "Race slur senator" -wikipedia, the only results that show up are copies of this same column, so it is clearly incorrect &mdash; whether he is passing this column off as a "news" piece or an opinion piece &mdash; to make it sound as though the term had gained widespread use.  Exactly one person uses it.  Secondly, this article/column/whatever was written in 2006, and so if it were appropriate for it to be referenced in a biography of George Allen (which it isn't because it would give undue weight to it), the appropriate place to do so would be in the section that deals with the controversy and certainly not in a paragraph about the 2012 election, especially when you're adding it to a sentence about his opponent.  Jim Webb did not mention Allen's faux pas in his statement of apathy about Allen's candidacy and juxtaposing the two is at best disingenuous and at worse flagrantly biased.  The section already mentions macacagate (as it should), albeit using a less than spectacular source to do so.  Surely someone actually affiliated with the democrats (and not just a blogger) reacted and the article seems to falsely give this blogger credit for the name "Felix Macacawitz", even though a simple google reveals it to not be the case. --B (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you're an administrator, I'm not going to argue with you. But the author of that article is clearly a reporter, not a opinion columnist. Fair enough, it shouldn't be mixed in the sentence about Webb, but surly it deserves mention somewhere in the article. WikiManOne (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I signed into commons with my old account to check on the change username there and it somehow switched me to the old one. my bad. WikiManOne 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being an administrator doesn't impose any special editing privileges (except for BLP special enforcement, which this is NOT). While I agree he is a reporter, plenty of reporters have both news articles and opinion pieces.  A simple search at http://www.thetimes.co.uk shows that some of his pieces are in the "US & Americas" section, while others are in the "Columnists" section.  But even if he was as serious as serious can be and thought that "race slur senator" was an appropriate name to use in a news article, he is still the only one on the planet to do so.  We don't give undue weight to such things.  If nobody else anywhere is referring to him by that name, it isn't appropriate here.  Contrast that with "Macacawitz", which has been heavily picked up among left-leaning bloggers. --B (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And that specific article is listed under "US & Americas" . I don't see how that's undue weight, that article was also heavily picked up by left-leaning bloggers and it was reported on just the other week by local TV stations which is how I learned of the article and added it. WikiManOne 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have a different definition of "heavily picked up" than I do, but Google has 23 hits. Only two of those hits does anything beyond merely link to the article - Not Larry Sabato and care2.com (which seems to be some kind of facebook for feel good causes).  One blog is not "heavily picked up".  What TV station is it that you saw this on?  Was it somebody's actual news?  Were they actually reporting it as though "race slur senator" was his nickname in the foreign press or simply "look at what some guy called him"? --B (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it was on one of the local newscasts on the charlottesville newsplex, that was right after his announcement so I can't say I remember the exact words but it was something along the lines of "dubbed the 'race slur senator' by the international press." I had never heard it before so I searched it and added it here. WikiManOne 20:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

More Allegations...Allegations upon Allegations. Lets make this article 80% allegation and 20% neutral
did you ever notice that Wikipedian's love to add "allegations" and "controversey" sections to politicians they hate? This is how the corrupt Wiki hides his "NPOV". If you want to write an article that is overtly biased and call it "neutral"...all you do is stuff it with controversey. Of course, every politician has dirt on them...dirt that is real, dirt that is fabricated. The leftist bigoted Wikipedian knows that all he needs to do in order to slam a politician is focus heavily on controversey.

'''Here's the bigoted hypocrite biased typical wikipedian model for trashing political candidates. If you ever wondered how a wikipedian manages to write a biased article and pose it off as "NPOV" (neutral point of view)...here you go. (All wiki's know what I'm talking about...you won't admit it, but that is because you are dishonest). here is the template:

'''Section 1: Introduce candidate. Include at least one controversey

Section 2: Brief History

Section 3: Controversey

Section 4: Allegation

Section 5: Controversey

Section 6: Allegation

Cite references'''  Bingo! A fully slanted, and heavily biased article disguised as "NPOV". Simply because references are cited, that makes it neutral. Yes of course! References like Al Franken or NOW, etc. Wikipedia is a corrupt, dishonest and repugnant repository for people who impose viewpoints in deceptive fashion. All this controversey on Allen's page, yet none on Webb's page. Hypocrites.'''

Wikipedia: Neutral my ass"

Wtf is that? can somebody delete this section from the main page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.174.167 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 10 March 2007


 * Unfortunately, that's Wikipedia. Compare this to any liberal's page and you can see the difference -- no controversies on the other side of the fence are there? 138.162.128.52 (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These comments were also in the main article; I have deleted them as POV. The parts of the article on recent controversies, although well-sourced, do seem disproportionately large in comparison to the remainder. That seems to be common on other pages on politicians who recently ran for office. Perhaps the remedy for that is expand (and source) the sections dealing with the Senator's career and accomplishments. Kablammo 11:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this article is biased. I would hope that an organization such as Wikipedia would would authenticate an information before posting. Then again this is the main concern with freedom of the press. An article can be written and imply whatever without being validated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.45.237 (talk • contribs).

The article is fine as it stands. It states the relevant facts and the controversies with adequate citations. NPOV does not mean that an article should whitewash all negative events and the controversies. To do so would be a disservice to those who come here for information. To the originator of this comment, if you believe this article needs to be fixed, fix it, and back up your fixes with the proper arguments and citations. Do NOT just rant on the discussion page. It's counterproductive, and smacks of being a sore loser. lk 08:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stock prices and NPOV
Is it really necessary to include stock prices of corporations whose board he sat on? Since they are only cited when they lose value, it clear that the intent is to imply he is a poor businessman, something that is definitely not NPOV nor consistent with a biography of a living person. The Senator is also known for being a politician, not a businessman, and such technical details are not needed. Emozilla (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, just as a side note, this article reeks of biased POV. One sentence sections such as "worked for a company that does some government work" is pointless, especially in light that 75% of the article are sections suggesting impropriety. This article, in my opinion, needs a full re-write. Emozilla (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Macaca!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.13.234 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)