Talk:Virgil Goode/Archive 1

Better references
Can we find a better reference for the text of the document other than that whack job 'news' agency that is there currently? There are several reputable agencies with the text of the letter.
 * Here you go! [] cecilgol 20:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary lock against anon IPs?
I really think this would be a good idea, considering the IP traffic from Goode critics and supporters.--Folksong 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I watched for a bit, but finally came to agree with you. We'll semi-protect it for a few hours and see how it works out.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ellison's genealogy
This is regarding M stone's edit adding the line "The letter appears to be ill informed as the Ellison is not an immigrant but an Afican American whose family ancestry in the US dates back to 1742." to the "2006 Quran controversy" section.

The sentence from Goode's letter to which I believe M stone is referring reads as follows: "The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Goode claims indirectly that the Muslims population of the US is primarily increased by immigration and that more Muslims in the US leads to a greater chance they will be elected to Congress. He does not, however, claim that Ellison is such an immigrant, only that he shares the Muslim faith with potential immigrants he fears will enter the country in the future.

M stone's edit may be compatible with this point because it qualifies Goode's "ill informed" status with the word "appears". However, if I have established that it is unreasonable to argue Goode mistakenly believes Ellison is a recent immigrant, the edit should be removed because it asserts the likelihood of something I have shown to be likely false. Cavetelum 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Goode is ill-informed about Ellison's background...he makes a pretty clear "If, then" statement about immigration leading to more Mulisms in Congress.

Right, but he didn't say Ellison is an immigrant, only that most Muslims are immigrants. Cavetelum 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made an interim fix to M stone's edit, attributing the sentiment expressed to Ellison, as the article referenced above indicates that Ellison himself objected to Goode on the grounds that he is not an immigrant. Cavetelum 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Folksong: I noticed you replaced the paragraph in question with your contribution. Please discuss. Cavetelum 23:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know there was such a big discussion going on about this. I'll butt out and let you guys handle this one. Feel free to revert the paragraph.--Folksong 03:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Folksong: Thanks - I've made the change. Feel free to participate if you'd like. The more the merrier. Cavetelum 03:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Other
Cavetelum, in your edit with the rather innocuous edit summary "Grammar and flow changes to last paragraph. I believe it is clearer now and that the original meaning is not changed.", you excised the portion regarding Goode's stance on immigration from "non-European"states--that's a direct quote from the CNN article I linked when introducing that sentence. Do you have a rationale for this change? Traumerei 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Traumerei: I guess I did remove that, though not intentionally. I apologize and have added it back in, although not as a quote. Cavetelum 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've wikified the diversity visas link (it was previously "what he calls diversity visas"...that's actually pretty close to the official name of the program), and also reinstated his quote on legal immigration as it appeared on CNN; I believe that aids clarity, and besides there isn't any need to paraphrase ambiguously ("or non-European states" seemed like it was equating terrorist states with non-Euro states, which I don't believe was the intent. The CNN excerpt was "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states.") Traumerei 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I replaced "and" with "or from" before "some terrorist states". The original CNN verbiage is not grammatical. If you think my substitution changes the meaning, mention it and we can discuss. Cavetelum 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Virgil Goode in Categories Anti-Islam sentiment & Anti-Arabism
Category:Anti-Islam sentiment Category:Anti-Arabism

He has made discriminating comments about Islam and people that are muslims that are from various racial backgrounds including of Arab origin. In conclusion his statements that he felt if we do not stop immigration from these "muslim" counties (i.e. Arab, Asian) then we will lose our nation's identity. This is clearly Anti-Islam sentiments and Anti-Arabism.Bnguyen 09:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the most populous muslim countries in the world are not Arab (Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh). It's imprecise to put him in the Anti-Arabism category.  He's already in categories based on criticism of Islam and that's more accurate.--Velvet elvis81 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Criticism of religion is one thing, endorsing a stop to Muslim immigrants entering the country is something else. To vocally disagree with the theology of Islam is a different animal than is spreading fear of its followers generically. The latter is a prejudice against a people, and justifies his inclusion in both these categories. Falcon2020 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing I said has a single thing to do with your response. I'm confused.  "Arabs" are not necessarily "Muslims"--look at Coptic Christians.  "Muslims" are not necessarily "Arabs"--look at Indonesia.  Goode's statements concerned Muslim immigrants.  Thus, he's not really anti-Arab but rather anti-Muslim, of whatever ethnic stripe, and therefore including him in Anti-Arab categories is incorrect.--Velvet elvis81 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not just anti-Muslim and/or anti-Arab. Quite clearly, he's anti-nonwhite, given his open desire to end legal immigration by non-Europeans. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rocky Mount? Outside Roanoke?
I take umbridge at casting Rocky Mount, the couny seat of Franklin County, in the shadow of Roanoke by describing it as "a small town outside Roanoke". That statement implies that Roanoke is the center of something. Can we fairly describe Roanoke as a city outside Washington, D.C.? Is Newark a city outside New York? Is Oakland a city outside San Francisco? Hardly! Each of these places, including Rocky Mount, stands firmly on its own. If any reader is unfamiliar with the location of Rocky Mount, he can click the link and find a wealth of information on the entry about Rocky Mount, Virginia. --Blake the bookbinder 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia category
On the other prejudice categories it's generally been agreed to restrict use of them on living people. I suggest that the Qur'an controversy thing be in the Islamophobia category, but Goode be removed. I will implement this and see what results.--T. Anthony 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This person has actually been accused of being "Islamophobic", and as such certainly meets the criteria. Atari400 03:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally opposed to putting him back, but a certain caution is in order with articles on living people. Even placing Filip Dewinter in the category caused some controversy and he essentially self-describes as Islamophobic.--T. Anthony 04:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the standard for the Islamophobia category is to avoid putting people in them, but just sticking to actual disputes and individuals who are deceased, I can't see that there's a good reason to break that standard for Rep. Goode. And, FWIW, I say that as a Democrat living in Goode's district who thinks that "Islamophobic" is an utterly appropriate adjective to describe him.--WaldoJ 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You just made the best argument I heard on this whole topic. I am not sure I agree with the standard of keeping it only to the deceased, but if that has to be the standard, then your notion is logical, and should be included across the board for all these "categories". Atari400 00:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul
I suppose the info on his donation to Ron Paul is only borderline noteworthy, but I'm fine with keeping it in. However, can we put it somewhere besides the "State Politics" section--that placement is completely inappropriate. But there doesn't seem to be anywhere else in the article where it would fit. Perhaps we should rename that section?--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hummer incident
The recent writeup for the Hummer incident was terrible. It was a deeply inaccurate description of Virgil Goode's role in the matter. If you think you're helping this entry by making modifications to this section, please, take a few minutes to follow the citations and read some of the facts. And understand that I'm a Democrat in Goode's district who has put a lot of time into getting the man out of office over the past seven years; I'm not exactly soft on the guy.--WaldoJ (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Election
This article should include info about the 2008 election in this district and the extremely narrow margin of victory for Goode's challenger and the recount that is likely.(Bentley4 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Done.
 * --JohnPomeranz (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NOPV section
I just put an NPOV tag on one of the sections of the article. Also, the section has very few citations. The section states that Goode actively opposes some civil rights for homosexuals. This statement is in itself POV. It implies that Goode is doing something that is wrong. Please look into this and suggest alternate wording. What exactly does Goode oppose? Does this incident warrant such a large section in the article? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Though you're right that more citations are necessary—and may well be right that this incident doesn't warrant so much attention—I cannot buy that the statement in question is POV. It's a statement of fact. It only implies that he's doing something wrong if you believe that homosexuals should have all of the same civil rights as heterosexuals. Citing that sentence as POV without suggesting a NPOV replacement isn't particularly helpful, given that it's just not clear (at least to me) that there's anything POV about it. --WaldoJ (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Party switching?
All the news reports I can find show that Goode has not left the Republican Party; he just hangs around with the Constitution Party as well. I am removing any CP tags on him barring a clearer statement that he has left his primary affiliation. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He's a member of the Constitution Party's executive committee. I think that's a pretty clear statement. :) --WaldoJ (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Presidential aspirations
I added a section about Goode's interest in running for president. The references now are all from bloggers who were present at the Constitution Party meeting where Goode addressed the gathering or who received a fundraising mailer on the topic; I'd prefer better sources, but they don't exist yet. Also, I went with the title of "Presidential aspirations" for the section, and I don't feel great about that second word. It seems...I don't know...diminutive? But it's not a "campaign" yet, so I can't use that word. If anybody has a better idea, go for it. :) --WaldoJ (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)