Talk:George Allen (American politician)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comments on Islam

Something should be added about Allen's support for James Dobson's claim that we are at war with American Muslims, an allegation Dobson made at the 2006 Values Voters Summit, where both were in attendance. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/24/110949.shtml?s=ic (Anon) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2006.

I don't think we can infer that at all from the link you've given us. First and foremost, the claim that Dobson is against American muslims is entirely unsupported. Also, we only have that Allen was attendance, not that he supported that specific statement.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The "N-Word" Controversy

How is it relevent to this page when 16 out of the 19 teammates in that story allege allen didn't use the n word? Do we put it in there when there's only 3 out of 19 alleging it (one of whom is a democrat donor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoBolts (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2006 .

Because it's a story, reported on by a major news outlet, that could have major ramifications for the campaign. If we're going to be basing Wikipedia articles based on whether someone has disagreed about a historical event, then we should be deleting half of the political articles here. -Senori 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Salon's known for left-wing bias. This is just another hit job, and needs to be removed.--Bedford 03:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

3 out of 19 alleged it. The remaining 16 didn't all refute it. Salon explains this well - the allegation and refutations should be presented together. The story is relevant regardless because of both longstanding and recent allegations of racism. (Salon is as acceptable a source as any reputable online magazine, left-wing bias and all). --AStanhope 03:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should remove anything by the NYT and any comments by a Democrat, too? The fact of the matter is that first, Salon is fairly reputable, and second, that it's an allegation made with a reasonable amount of basis behind it and with the knowledge of the Allen campaign. We don't remove the Swift Boat stuff from John Kerry's article because it was done by a right-wing group; it's a part of the campaign, and of the current events. -Senori 04:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of housekeeping, can someone take the link out of the section heading. Thanks. 64.42.209.81 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, since there has been a rebuttal, shouldn't it be in there as well as the claim: Allen's response? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.185.18.207 (talk • contribs) .

Yes. Feel free to add something in. Just link to the reference in the text you add, please. --StuffOfInterest 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Soz, it's semiprotected. Can't do much myself. --198.185.18.207 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put in an unprotect request, so it will hopefully be opened back up soon. Would be much easier (especially in the long run) if you create an account. --StuffOfInterest 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a very short paragraph; it could certainly do with some work, but it's there for now. -Senori 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are now a number of other complainants who have come forward and are willing to put their names to the accusations, including Doug Thompson. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/09/george_allens_r.html

I think that the use of "N-word" is a bit redundant and puerile. I recommend that the actual word be used once in the article, and then instead of using "the N-word", it should be changed to "the word", but with no emphasis on it. It's a bit more professional and isn't so repetitive sounding. I don't think there should be a problem with using the word "nigger" to get to the point. I don't know wikipedia's rules on profanity and language, but if it is a problem, then the term N-word should be used once, and then the rest of the time following my recommendation. The exception to this would be in quotes. I still think the use of "N-word" is a bit childish though, and younger people are not likely to read this article anyway, as whom under the age on 16 follows politics?

201.43.6.118 18:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 11/04/06 Charles Black

You have a point, but I think it would be inappropriate to use the word in the article. At this point in history (in the United States), it is simply too inflammatory. Using the word stokes powerful emotions without usually creating an opportunity for understanding. We can hope for a less incendiary future for "the word," but I cannot agree to using it right now. (Sen. Allen certainly would not appreciate it either, at least not before the polls close.) -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

More random information

Here is an article from the Washington Post stating that many people knew that Allen's mother was jewish (or figured it out). [1] Anybody have any feelings on incorporating this information into the article? Remember 15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

The New York Times has an article up giving the name of another person who said Allen used the n word here: [2]. Any opinions on incorporating this? Remember 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Both should be included. Arbusto 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And another separate allegation [3]. I have no idea how credible any of these are.Remember 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, here is one last link [4] it is a nice article that gives a good timeline of the whole controversy. I think it could be usefule to anyone that wants to fleshout the timing of the whole incidence. Remember 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Bashing Conference Attended by Allen, others

George Allen just recently attended a confederence held by the Family Research Council that degraded into preachers screaming "Faggots!" "Gays are from pits of hell!" "The Anti-Christ will be a homosexual!" [5]

Removal of section

Family Research Council Summit

Well, let's start the discussion. One argument is that this section is not appropriate because there's no evidence Allen did anything other than attend an event at which someone else made inflammatory remarks and the event hasn't received a large amount of media attention (at least at this point). On the other hand, it is referenced. Any thoughts? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While thinkprogress.org is indeed notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, that doesn't mean that their criticism is notable enough to say "has been criticized, along with other Republican politicians..." when it looks like just them so far (and similar groups). Let's see if it gets serious media attention. Ufwuct 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone because I just removed the section without a comment on the talk page. I just dont feel it is notable enough. I follow a few races very closely and the thinkprogress is the first actual citable article that I have seen on this particular controversy. I dont think it is enough to critize, the criticism has to be a bit more common than one or two minority viewpoint sources. If more fuentes start to report on this then I think it should be included. Jasper23 03:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jasper23's removing this section from the article. This controversy isn't unique to Senator Allen; it implicates the conservative movement as a whole, yes, but not Allen to any greater degree than other conservative senators. If there were a stronger connection between Allen and this conference -- say, if he had planned the agenda -- I'd say mention that. But this is penny-ante stuff, commpared to the other controversies mentioned here. --GGreeneVa 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, without any major sources it warrants exclusion. However, if more sources are provided it can be added. Arbusto 03:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Allen's response that he "ate ham sandwiches" and his "mother made excellent pork chops"? It's exactly this type of blatantly bigoted ethnic insensitivity that warrants all of his DOCUMENTED ethnic and racial behavior being monitored and chronicled...if not here then somewhere. Allen is the new Wallace, do we just smile and overlook that? Allen is a bigot, a complete and utter racist...this is undeniable. Anyone who moves from California to Virginia because "in Virginia, blacks know their place" and then pretends to be a "good old boy" (read native Southerner)...etc etc...raises major questions about what type of people are in public service currently, what constitutes an "electable" candidate, what authenticity has been eroded to. His behavior should be chronicled here alongside his accomplishments as he is the most glaring example in recent history of a horribly racist elected offical gaining national prominence. Whether his beliefs discredit him from serving is up to voters, but facts belong in public forums, such as wikipedia, campaigns belong on campaign pages. That Allen is a racist is FACT.

Change The Title of This Article?

Shouldn't the title of this article be changed? It is a bit misleading, isn't it? The text seems rather slanted, to say the least. Each and every section has something negative and prejudicial to add, whether it is germane or not.

Perhaps the article should be re-named "Attacks Against Sen. George Allen, Jr." or "Negative Talking Points About Sen. George Allen, Jr." Even "Let's Bash George Allen!" would be a more accurate title for this article.

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states

       that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, 
       they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias.....
       According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, "A few things are absolute and 
       non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example."

[[6]]

Gibby88US 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Allen appears to have been the subject of major controversy from significant sources. Not to include them would, indeed, violate NPOV per your quotation. Sdedeo (tips) 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to have done quite a good job of cataloguing those controversies, and of dropping hints, blowing things out of proportion, and stating allegations as if they were proven facts. My objection is that there is very little in the way of balancing response or even questioning.

This article starts by saying Allen got out of Vietnam with a draft deferment. The incurious may look no further, and never learn that the war was practically over by the time he graduated from High School or that there were no US troops there 2 years before he graduated college. Then the article closes with the bald assertion that Sen. Allen is a racist and uses racist language. A trusting soul may not realize that this is a quote of a rather loud-mouthed talk-show hype-master, paraphrasing the second hand accusations related by professor Sabato, who refuses to reveal his secret corroborating evidence. These two examples are worthy bookends for what comes between.

You may not agree with me, but surely you can see why I think the current article doesn't have NPOV.

Gibby88US 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You should make some constructive edits to change what you see as non-substantiated accusations in the article. I dont see this article as particularly pov but if you think the article can be improved I implore you to make some changes and then run them by the community. Be bold and help to improve wikipedia. Jasper23 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gibby: you might have accidentally mischaracterized the video w/ Sabato. The words were his, not Matthews'; the quotes are quotes, rather than a paraphrase. [And the attribution to Sabato makes pretty clear that this is his experience or perspective, rather than a bald assertion of fact.] --GGreeneVa 04:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a bit left sided, even more than it should be. I'm not much of a fan of George Allen, but following his voting record, and some of the bills he introduced, he seems a reasonably decent politician if you get past the left/right stuff. I think some of this should be emphasized in the article.

201.43.6.11811/04/06 Charles Black

In general it is moe helpful if those that have problems with the article give some specific examples of revisions instead of generally criticize an article. Remember 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Another accusation

NY Times has printed another article about someone accusing Allen of using racial epithets. See [7]. I would think that this should be added to the article if we are going to report this incident fully. Remember 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sabato has clarified his position and the article should reflect this: [8] saying, "I didn't personally hear GFA (Allen's initials) say the n-word." Also perhaps a word on Webb's implicit admission that he used the n-word too? --198.185.18.207 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the claims you made about Webb. Arbusto 16:00, ::::::27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read about Webb's "admission" and it really is quite ridiculous. Even bringing it up makes unidentified user lose all credibility. Jasper23 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Did you read the source I just gave? Webb stated, "I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life." So there is an implicit addmission that he had said it once or twice (and stereotyping Southerners fairly derogatorily at the same time). --198.185.18.207 16:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the source you gave or did you think selectively citing was enough?

Webb referred to his novel, "Fields of Fire," which aides said includes passages using the n-word as part of character dialogue. But he added: "I have never issued a racial or ethnic slur."

Asked for clarification of his original answer, spokeswoman Jessica Smith quoted Webb as saying, "I have never used that word in my general vocabulary or in any derogatory way."

So I guess Webb did use the N-word. In his book and never as a racial or ethnic slur. Quite an admission. Jasper23 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Allen has also denied it (without throwing the entire south under the bus while he was at it), so you believe him then too, right? --198.185.18.207 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on. Read the material again. I am not going to spell it out for you word for word. Jasper23 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, please do spell it out for me. Webb said "I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life." Which basically means that he "at one time or another in his life" used the word. Then he says, "I have never issued a racial or ethnic slur." Okay, so he didn't say it... other than in his book, I'll believe him. Now why would you accept Webb's denial but not Allen's? Your stance needs to be spelled out. --198.185.18.207 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are doing great! Okay, now what did Allen say in response to said accusations? Did he say exactly the same thing? Jasper23 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Allen said, "The story and his comments and assertions in there are completely false... I don't remember ever using that word and it is absolutely false that that was ever part of my vocabulary." So he denied it without putting down the entire Southern population. Is that not enough? --198.185.18.207 16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"I don't remember ever using that word" and not "part of my vocabulary" are not denials of having used the word in a racist context. He denied the contents of the story and not his ever using the word in a racist way. He hedged. He hedged big time. That is the difference. Its not about believing one or the other its about their actual statements. Also, you just dont understand the nuance of the whole southern statement. Thats fine. Jasper23 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this is getting so much press, I think we should try to have a complete and clear narrative of the whole event. I sort of think this belongs more on the election page since it really is becoming more of a campaign issue. What do others think? Remember 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Even more information. The following link is to salon which now says that another person has confirmed aspects of the deer head story. See [9]. Remember 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing controversies should not be presented in such detail

Simply put, the section about Allen's racism is a complete mess. No matter what you think about the controversy, the article is rambling, poorly edited, and just way way too long. I propose that this, and all other ongoing controversies should be presented as short summaries, not include every little detail and he said she said. Wikipedia is NOT the place to argue an ongoing controversy in great detail via documentation. A fuller, more complete account of the event can be written AFTER all the dust has settled and its clear what the implications of the controversy are and what the major takeaway points are.

So I propose that it simply say "George Allen has recently faced a number of accusations that he used the n word in a derogatory fashion. He has labeled these charges false and presented character witnesses who attest that he would not use such language The controversy is ongoing." Not those exact words, but basically that and not much longer. And that's it. If he resigns, or more details emerge that change the story radically, we can add those, but accounting each and every one of the accusations and counter-accusations as they happen is just a recipe for a terribly written article. Someone can do that later on, when it is more clear which things were important and which weren't.Plunge 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article read like a hitpiece for the Webb campaign. If Webb smear merchants have taken to wikipedia, then they really must be desperate. It was quite amusing to read the allegations without any of the rebuttals that were easily found. I added AND CITED the rebuttals to the garbage spewed forth against Senator Allen. It's pretty sad that Webbers are so desperate that they need to engage in character assasination. Ghostmonkey57 22:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I see Capitol Hill Blue cited as a source for some of this negative info. I always thought that CHB was a prank site, considering some of the claims they made about Bush last year that never panned out (that he had gone crazy, his wife left him, etc.) I certainly don't think that it is reliable enough to source negative info in a BLP. There's a reason why CHB's wikilink is red. I'm teetering on the edge of removing it, and the statement it sources. Crockspot 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the CHB-supported statement. And lest anyone doubt my assessment of their reliability, here are a couple of examples: A purged story, with an apology that enlightens us as to their "journalistic standards" (was a story about Bush gone mad), a piece on Bush's "current" liquor and drug use. Crockspot 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, wrong decision. The accusation was made in CHB, but it was made by a specific person who has stood by their story. The reliability of the paper's journalism hence doesn't come into it. The claim is being made by a particular person, just like all the others. Plunge 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that a full and accurate narrative of the event should be presented. The alternative is to provide a simplified version that does not accurately state what has happened. But I do think that this more accurately should belong on the Senate race page and not George Allen's biography. Remember 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I got better things to do that edit war, but Bedford (talk · contribs) just reverted some clean up.[10] Someone needs to present both sides in the first paragraph to the section, wikify the claims, and properly cite it. No suprise that the user defending Allen's claims has been editting at confederate soldier articles[11]. Arbusto 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That kind of comment is uncalled for. Why don't you just call him a cracker? Crockspot 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really getting sick of seening people messing with these articles. The section reads horrible. There are two one sentence paragraphs in that section as the opening. Arbusto 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You did everything you could to delete points that defended Allen, while you put back quotes from dubious left-leaning sources to smear Allen. Remember, we are trying for NPOV.--Bedford 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, I could careless about Allen's campaign. There was a claim that 19 teammates "denied" the allegations. According to the sources, 7 teammates said that hadn't heard Allen use the word. Hence, the story wasn't "denied" nor was the number right. "Dubious left leaning sources"... just make sure to go and remove all the "dubious rightwing sources" that praise conservatives as well. Arbusto 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was ghostmonkey who added three good but unformatted RS sources. One got removed in the flurry of cleanup edits, but I replaced it, and reformatted all three to comply with the rest of the php cites. I'm going to bed, but I surely hope that they are still in the article tomorrow. Crockspot 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We're sort of headed back in the direction of the level of detail the Macaca thing got. It really shouldn't be that big a part of this article. I realize we can't shift it over to the campaign article like we did the bulk of the Macaca text. This does deal more with Allen's past, so it does belong here. Still, these allegations are only days old. I can't help but think this is undue weight.--Rosicrucian 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This tends to happen when politically motivated editors become overzealous. Dubc0724 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We can likely trim down the mother's ancestry one significantly too. It's turned out to be a non-issue, I think.--Rosicrucian 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. We can definetely cut down some of the more repetitive or non-notable materials. Jasper23 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Heck, his mother's ancestry has turned out to be less of a controversy and more of a curiosity. We could easily move the newly-trimmed section as a subsection of "Family and History."--Rosicrucian 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep it in the controversy section while it is still fresh. Lets wait and see what the critical mass (if any) of all these events are. Jasper23 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While all of this should probably be cut-down after awhile, I think it is too soon to cut it down. Maybe after awhile we should just move the bulk of it to the election page so that people can know the full events of these controversies with regards to the election. Remember 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: this gets things EXACTLY backwards. Wikipedia is ostensibly aiming at more of an objective historical perspective on things than as a webblog of ongoing events. Controversies should be noted, but its simply impossible to write a good, well balanced, objective article in real time as the controversy is still ongoing. Most importantly, it it simply isn't clear what elements are important and what aren't: so we just end up with everything but the kitchen sink. A detailed account of the controversy and it's impact on Allen's life should come LATER after the dust has settled, not immediately as it is ongoing. Plunge 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to add a Controvery to Webb's page it was removed and I was told that this subject was already addressed on the Senate Campaign for 2006. So why do all these same controverseys on George Allens page not moved to the campaign page? --Doug rosenberg 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Doug. I do agree that there is some discrepancy between the pages. However, part of that is the fact that George Allen is having a bit of a campaign implosion with all of these controversies. That is of course a descrepancy that cant be changed. However, I would like to hear your solution to make the articles more balanced. Please spell out exactly what you think needs to be done. I would appreciate it. Jasper23 16:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

7 0f 19 teamates

Here is the original source from Salon...

http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football/

The statement, as worded, in the current article is false. Please fix or remove. Thanks Jasper23 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several other articles (Bob Lewis, Michael Sluss) that also mention names of people, and rebut the Salon piece. I don't have time until tonight to read them all and do a count, but let's make sure we take those sources into account as well. Crockspot 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's tricky in politics separating spin from reality, but just because the Allen folks say they rebut it does't mean that they actually did. For instance, none of them offer any direct contradiction to the story: they are all basically character witnesses. The few points of discrepancy they raise aren't in fact very strong at all: just because there are other stories other people heard about how this or that nickname started or why Allen went to UVA: even if they are the true stories! does not prevent Allen from bragging about it in the way Shelton describes. Plunge 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I am going to take out the statement until we get it properly sourced and worded. Then it can go back in. I think the general intent may be right, but the wording is quite wrong. Hope thats okay. Jasper23 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the statement that sixteen of the nineteen have denied it is flat-out unsupported by the listed source, so I've at least edited it to be accurate according to the source listed.--Rosicrucian 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit Rosicrucian. It looks to be very well done. Jasper23 23:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And another accusation, this time with video

Here is another story accusing Allen of using the n-word by a new individual [12]. Any thoughts on incorporating this? Remember 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sons of Confederat Veterans

I changed "turned on" to criticized for several reasons. One, it is in quotes, without a source being quoted. Two, it seems to be POV. Three, it could be misinterpreted as the Sons of Confederat Veterans giving Allen an erection. Crockspot 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious. I have no further comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Turned on" was the how it was worded in the article. Arbusto 03:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Discrepency between George Allen page and Jim Webb Page

When I tried to add a "controversey" to the Jim Webb page I was told this is suppose to belong on the 2006 Campaign page. I don't disagree with this. However, when I come to George Allen page, I find the vast majority of it consists of these "controversies" and many editors gloating over how many they can put on the page. I am advocating that these all be moved to the campaign page. --Doug rosenberg 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderfully slanted world of Wikipedia. ;-) In all honesty, it's not too biased... however, in this case you are dead right. Jasper23 (and others) is determined to keep Webb good/Allen bad. But it happens. What'r'you gonna do? --198.185.18.207 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the attack anon user. You should create an account and help contribute to wikipedia, instead of just making silly remarks. Jasper23 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I remember you now. No wonder you dont like me. Jasper23 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken... I like you tremendously. I just think you have been engaging in political slantedness (is that a word?) around these particular articles. You have removed the allegations of Webb's racial comments, but keep these here on this article. It just seems your bias is glaring. There are stupid allegations from both sides... I just feel both, or more preferably and in line with BLP (and less potentially libelous, for that matter) neither of them, should be included. You totally accept Webb's denial, but brush off Allen's. But you're not the only one. No attack was intended. --198.185.18.207 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you thought about signing up for an account? Its pretty hard to take an anon user seriously. 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The general approach we follow is that a politician's bio should include at least a summary of significant controversies. I haven't looked over the Webb article and its history in detail, but I'd say that there should be some information there about the Naval Academy issue, or any other significant controversy. Where there's a daughter article about the campaign or about the specific controversy, it can be presented in more detail there, but that's no basis for removing it entirely from the bio article. How much goes into the bio article depends on a (necessarily subjective) judgment about the point's significance to the bio.

One problem Allen has is that issues like the Confederate flag, the racist graffiti, the noose, "Macaca", and his reaction to the religion question all work together to lead some people to accuse him of bigotry. A persistent thread in a person's life will tend to seem more significant than an isolated incident. Webb has drawn criticism over the Naval Academy and over the Reagan ad but the two tend not to reinforce each other the way that Allen's troubles do.

In a quick look at the Webb article history, I see this recent edit that added a mention of the Naval Academy but also inexplicably introduced "math" tags so as to foul up a date. If other anons were doing similar things, that may have complicated the situation. JamesMLane t c 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, that particular edit (even after a cleanup) was removed by an editor who said it is already on the campaign page. There seems to be garbage cleanup of this on Webb's page but none on Allen's page. Somehow this editor was very concerned about Jim Webbs page but not at all concerned about George Allens page.

Now everybody knows that all these controversies about George Allen are just nonsense dreamed up by democratic operatives to score points in the election. Some of these controversies supposedly happened 30 years ago and are not substantiated by anything more than what some dead man supposedly told a democratic operative.

Neither Jim Webb or George Allen are burning crosses or making racist speeches and there is no such record of either. There is substantially more written record of Jim Webb's stance on women in the Navy which he ran. If these controversies are allowed on one page, thEn they should be allowed on the other as they are IMO equally nonsense. Honestly, I wish both these candadates ran on the records and not on gossip.--Doug rosenberg 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding right? Please tell me you dont really believe what you just wrote. Jasper23 21:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I believe it 100%. Leaving that aside, Jasper do you not think that given the state of George Allen page with the controveries that at least the Navy controversey does not belong on the Webb page? That is at least more factual verifiable than most if all of the Allen controversies.--Doug rosenberg 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We should discuss this on the Webb page. But could you specify exactly what you mean about the Navy Controversy. All that really matters is that whoever puts it in needs to do a proper right-up. Every recent edit to the web page has been a bit sub par. If the quality of writing is high than it is pretty hard to deny inclusion. Jasper23 22:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Any specification about the Naval Academy issue belongs on Talk:Jim Webb, not here. What needs specification here is this comment by Doug rosenberg: "Some of these controversies supposedly happened 30 years ago and are not substantiated by anything more than what some dead man supposedly told a democratic operative." In a quick skim I didn't see anything in the George Allen article that met that description. JamesMLane t c 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Webb article doesn't mention any controversies; that's a mistake and I'll fix it, with references to the campaign article.

But I do share some puzzlement here: why are the following three sections not PRIMARILY in the campaign article, and briefly mentioned in the George Allen article, rather than (I assume, without looking) vice-versa? After the election is over, after all, these sections should shrink significantly in THIS article, and not at all in the campaign article:

• Mother's religious and ethnic background

• Allegations of Allen's use of racial slur in college

• Mailbox Allegations

-- John Broughton | Talk 01:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Webb, article does mention it. However, there is no need to make the section huge. For example, the Macca section has three sentences on this article, but the campaign article goes into further detail. Same with the Webb stuff. Arbusto 03:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW! If I just used Wikipedia for all of my information, I would think that the ONLY person to vote for next month would be Jim Webb. I mean, he's a hero, loved by Ronald Reagan, on and on...yet Allen is described as, more or less, a horrible person. Wiki bio "rules" seem to only work for Democrats/liberals. Now I haven't looked up the bios of EVERY politician, but from those I have, this certainly seems to be the case. And if you're wondering, I probably shouldn't have to say, but I am a conservative, and I AM biased (at least I can admit it), however I've been around long enough to be able to tell the difference between the way articles are written. And I'll even sign this, too, but I don't think it's an attack. Hopefully, someone might be able to see it as constructive criticism.Asacan 05:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's an obvious discrepancy, but I think that it's parallelling the amount and nature of coverage that Allen is receiving in the mainstream media compared to Webb right now. While your constructive criticism is useful, what would be more useful would be for you to join in and add to or edit content in the two articles to help reconstruct them to standards you consider more fair. Jkatzen 05:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh Please! That argument doesnt hold water. A controversy is a contoversy if it's carried in one main stream paper or a hundred. Of course my hat is off to the those who have made us all care about things which are more nonsensical than Mad Magazine, when there are real issues such as Iraq, Border Security and the Congressman trying to bang pages.

The bottomline is these controversies should either be on both pages or not on either.

We all know that the same active editors are on both pages so let's come to an agreement on this and make the playing field even. --Doug rosenberg 08:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Template

Lets fix this governer section and put it back in. It is horribly written and unsourced. I have bolded some of the gems.

As governor, Allen pushed for changes in several areas including the following: :

Criminal Justice Reform: Major changes included abolishment of parole, juvenile justice reform, and sentencing increases.

Welfare Reform: Major changes included a two year limit on assistance, a work requirement, and new child support measures.

Education Reform: During Allen's governorship, the state established academic standards that applied statewide. The standards were put in place for math, science, English, and history. Additionally, a system was put in place to measure the student achievement.

Lets work on making the page better instead of arquing over every little thing. Jasper23 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) I posted this awhile ago and someone put it back in without change. Please at least look at the grammar and pov pushing in this section. Jasper23 02:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you have a problem with? Grammar? -- I suggest making the changes yourself without removing the section. POV wording? -- Perhaps you could suggest better wording without removing the section. Undue weight? -- Maybe we could trim it a bit after discussion, but we shouldn't remove the section. These are the kinds of things that are supposed to be in articles about U.S. Senators/Governors/etc., i.e. accomplishments while in office. Remember, this article is not just a collection of information on scandals and controversies. Ufwuct 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is sourced to a former staff member of one of his campaigns. If you want to rewrite the whole section and resource it that would be great. If not it comes out until someone does. Thanks Jasper23 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Allen elected in 2000

mentions that ex-team mate congratulated Allen when Allen was elected to Senate in 2006.

That should read 2000 , not 2006Ovrd 01:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia

Two paragraphs about the "macaca incident" were removed from the Dutch article on George Allen, by an anonymous user with an IP from Virginia [13] I doubt that person speaks Dutch, so it probably wasn't the writing style they disagreed with. Just making a note here, in case it comes to light that political staffers are manipulating articles, like it has in the past. --Oogje 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Undisclosed stock options

Just ran across this story in the news. It appears Senator Allen was accepting stock options without disclosing them to congress and may have been involved in legislation which benefited a company which gave him options. I won't be in a position to do any writing on this until tomorrow, but it may be worth digging out a few more sources if they are out there so it can be written up properly. As this involves actions while in Congress rather than election issues it probably belongs in this article rather than the election article. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding basic info. John Broughton | Talk 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrest Warrant

First reported on Daily Kos (www.dailykos.com), an arrest warrent for a George Felix Allen was issued in 1974 in relation to a criminal hearing on February 15th, 1973. There wasn't any more info on this, so I didn't post this on the main page). Shriek 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonkette has posted images purporting to show Virginia warrent records showing the name Allen, George Felix [14]. Time to put it on the main page??? 66.168.28.42 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

i know this is unverifiable and i dont have an account, but the arrest was for marijuana distribution

Thanks for the libel. Remember 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

w00t?

No more citation needed tags. Nice work to all. Maybe the macaca stuff (although obvious) should be sourced as well? --198.185.18.207 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The main article tag on the macaca stuff links to a section of an article with more than adequate sourcing of the whole incident. Thus, likely no need to source that small section.--Rosicrucian 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Second photograph?

Is there some point to the second image in the article? Allen looks pretty much the same there as he does in the top photo. Is this really adding value to the article. John Broughton | Talk 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like it to break up the text. Makes it more appealing to the eye, plus it isn't hurting anybody. It would be better if there was a more candid shot, maybe speaking at a rally or in a debate, that was PD or equivalent. --198.185.18.207 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that means no, it's not adding any substance to the article. Written information that is clearly redundant is routinely removed from articles; the same should go for images. It might make it more appealing to the eye to apply a polka-dot background and it wouldn't hurt anybody either, but there are standards.Emcee 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind having a second photograph, but it should be him campaigning or something. --Db099221 01:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Another article

The Washington Post has a profile piece on Allen [15]. It has some interesting stuff on the racial issues if anyone wants to look at it. Remember 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh, nothing new by a paper that has already endorsed Allen's opponent. Could be they keep hammering hoping maybe they'll find a nail. --198.185.18.207 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-page protection has been requested

This article seems to be getting a significant number of hits by anon IP addresses doing edits that are being reverted by those who have regularly helped edit this article. Because of that, and because I think it's likely that vandalism will increase in the next eleven days, to the election, I have requested semi-protection here. John Broughton | Talk 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

Well, poo. --198.185.18.207 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This IP address, 198.185.18.207, is registered to LexisNexis and may be shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. (from User Talk:198.185.18.207). John Broughton | Talk 00:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Joke of the year

This pseudo-article is one of the most hilarious that I have seen. All one has to do is to compare it to the pseudo-article about Allen's campaign rival James Webb, to quickly realize that there is not one iota of fairness or balance. These two pseudo-articles are so partisan - and it is quite clear that the prevailing "editors" want Webb to win and Allen to lose. This is why wikipedia is the joke that it is. Alas, you are fooling only yourselves and perhaps some dimwits and fools. How sad that you have such shallow goals. I would not even begin to try to edit the two articles for balance - all that will happen is that those who have dominated the articles to make sure they are partisanly stacked against Allen will continue to keep out all attempts at balance. What is quite lovely, though, is the realization that Allen is going to win despite the despciable democrat attempts to smear him. Enjoy! 84.146.205.206

Bummer when the facts make your baby look bad, isn't it? There are plenty of conservative editors in Wikipedia. They're quite capable of maintaining balance on controversial subjects…butt sometimes bias is in the eye of the beholder, eh?--RattBoy 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And even better than that, in a little more than two years we will call Allen President-elect.--Bedford 11:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You can call him that right now, if you wish. If you do so, you'll be as right now as you'll be in Nov. 2008; remember, the US ain't the Cradle of the Confederacy.--RattBoy 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Barr Labs controversy

I'm reverting Hardcoredemocrat's edits on Plan B as an abortifacient and Allen's view on abortion before viability for the following reasons. If you disagree, please discuss here.

1. Plan B should not be characterized as an abortifacient on this page. The morning after pill link, to Emergency contraception, discusses the controversy over its characterization as such. Hardcoredemocrat's edit summary (read this from the "emergency contraception" page: "the emergency contraceptive pill is a drug that acts to prevent the subsequent implantation of a blastocyst (embryo)". (acts as an abortifacient)") was a misleading excerpt from the page; the page actually reads: Emergency contraceptive pill —referred to simply as "emergency contraception," "ECPs," or "ECs", or "morning-after pill" —are drugs that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilisation, or possibly, post-fertilisation, subsequent implantation of a blastocyst (embryo). Contrary to Hardcoredemocrat's later edit summary, the emergency contraception page does discuss the controversy: here. Note that Plan B is a progesterone-only compound, which according to the EC page "will have no effect if taken after implantation", but rather prevents ovulation. In any case and as I have said before, this is not the appropriate page to discuss this controversy, we should just provide the appropriate links for readers to learn more about it.
2. Hardcoredemocrat's other edit (RNCLife didn't use VoteSmart to find out Allen's abortion position.. as an official legal organization, they found out on their own) is also problematic. Republican National Coalition for Life is "an official legal organization" inasmuch as any organization can be a legal, official organization, including Republicans for Choice or Log Cabin Republicans or Republicans for Kerry. Further, the RNClife page cited explicitly says that its information is derived from Project Vote Smart:

In 2000, Senator Allen responded to a Project Vote Smart questionnaire, saying abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support. In other words, he supported abortion until viability, when 98% of the abortions are performed. He said abortions should be legal when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, when the life of the woman is endangered, and he added that abortion should be legal for gross fetal abnormality. Of course, he supported the usual restrictions such as a partial-birth abortion ban, waiting periods, and opposed public funding of abortions. But the views he expressed can only be described as pro-choice, not pro-life.

There are two problems with this: first, RNCLife's interpretation of the questionnaire isn't valid. According to RNCLife, Allen indicated that abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable. RNCLife interpreted this as meaning that he supported abortion until viability, which is clearly an invalid logical conclusion, as Allen in fact (as far as we know, and as far as RNCLife tells us) was silent on his view of abortion before viability. I believe this casts doubt on the reliability of RNCLife as a source. Second, RNCLife is citing an outdated questionnaire. There is a more current, 2006 Vote Smart survey, which is a nonpartisan and, as far as I can tell, NPOV source. RNCLife clearly has a partisan interest in this issue. Note these mainstream news sources that characterize Allen as pro-life/anti-abortion: Washington Post and the News Virginian; the Examiner points out that Allen received a 0% rating from NARAL and a 100% rating from National Right to Life. I haven't seen any source other than that RNCLife page describe Allen as supportive of abortion before viability. Schi 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed 2008 candidacy from introductory praragraph until agreement about what is or is not POV

Schi, I want to know why you have reverted my edit. It was sourced, is factual, and is not POV. If it is not POV to report that he has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the 2008 elections, then it is also not POV to note that the possiblility for his becoming a candidate is far more unlikely today than it was a year ago.

Until we can agree whether or not it is POV to note that it is unlikely that he will become the Republican candidate I am removing the mention from the introductory paragraph.

--lk 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! My bad, I for some reason didn't see your source. I'll revert back to your edit. Schi 18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

POVcheck

Mehes tagged this article with the POV check template. Any explanation for it? Otherwise I will remove the template. Schi 07:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

the noose controversy

There is another significant Allen controversy that is not covered in his bio. George Allen had kept a noose in his office for years before going in to politics. When journalists asked him about it, he replied that it was a whip.Later he was forced to admit it was a noose. This was a big early controversy and relevant b/c of fututre Allen race-tinged incidents.It should be added to his bio. The noose is easeily documented.

• Please sign and date your comments. Also, it wouldn't hurt to open an account. Otherwise it makes sense for the rest of us to assume that anonymous comments are being planted by partisan sources connected to the Allen or Webb campaign and should not be taken seriously. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Heckler manhandling

Someone just tried to add in a section on the heckler manhandling yesterday. I've removed it as there is an active discussion going on at the election article over whether it should be in the article at all. Please contribute to the discussion there before putting anything in again. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be in the election article if it goes in anywhere. It doesn't belong on this page. Jasper23 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This has more to do with the people that handled the heckler than anything else and has more do do with the campaign than Allen personally. Remember 13:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This has to do with Allen, as the victim spoke to Allen directly before he was assaulted (allegedly by Allen's staffers), and it happened in right in front of Allen, at Allen's public appearance. The only thing that could have been more relevant was if Allen himself participated in the assault, which he didn't, but this is just one step removed. -- noosphere 05:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are at least four editors, myself included, who think this belongs ONLY in the campaign ARTICLE unless it gets a lot more publicity (in which case it MIGHT get a sentence or two in the campaign section of the Allen article).

Everything in the campaign ARTICLE is about Allen and/or Webb - that's not the criteria for where information goes. The criteria is basically: after the election is over, is this something that should STILL be in Allen's biography? Clearly (in my opinion) the answer is NO. It's a minor incident in one campaign. The campaign article is certainly the best place to preserve it for (wiki)history; put it in this article, and there's an excellent chance it will be gone within a month, if not a week. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Due respect to those who feel it should not be included, it is a relevant part of the current campaign and equally as viable as any of the "controversies" listed. This issue has been on nationwide cable news with the victim granting interviews to both MSNBC and CNN, to name a few. It has also been carried extensively on local news outlets. It's a story, and it should be included with the other controversies. I also edited at Webb's page - someone had included a VERY poorly sourced and inferential controversy. I did not remove it - merely added comments and left the original edit and links in place. Fair is fair to each side of this heated election, imo. Rena 19:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of us are not saying that the incident should not be included, just not in this article. This is a campaign issue which should be talked about in the campaign article. This is a discussion going on over there regarding if and how to include the information. --StuffOfInterest 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's campaign is it? Allen's. He was there. The victim spoke to him directly before being assaulted. Allen's staffers were allegedly involved. How much more directly related to Allen can this issue get? And this is not a "minor incident". As RenaRF pointed out, it's gotten major media attention. Therefore it's definitely notable enough for inclusion. And I should say I have no problem with including it in the campaign article. But I have heard absolutely no compelling reason to omit it from the Allen article. There's nothing wrong with having it in both. -- noosphere 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It will never be a major event in his life/career. He wasn't even involved in it. It belongs in a campaign article, and only because the news covered it. Just another white trash tabloid story stirred up by the media. George Allen has dimwits working for him - and a dimwit tried to stir up a controversy.. this is relevant to his bio article how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.161.204 (talk • contribs)

"It will never be a major event in his life/career." ? Can you predict the future or is this just your POV? The fact is that its gotten a lot of media coverage, and is therefore notable enough to include, per Wikipedia's policies. And it's relevant, again, because it was Allen's campaign. He was there. The vicim spoke to him directly before being assualt, and Allen's staffers are allegedly involved. This is all very relevant to this article. -- noosphere 22:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It belongs in the article. It shows Allen's character. This is terrific! 05:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WHat it shows is the character of those who hate Allen: punks that need to have happen to them exactly what happened to this punk.--Bedford 05:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How does it show his character? He wasn't the one tackling the dude. It needs to be removed. --198.185.18.207 14:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I just removed the section, because it was unsourced, and is factually incomplete. It is already in the campaign article, where it cites multiple sources, and is more accurate and complete. If someone is going to put it back, it should match the paragraph in the campaign article, including the sources. - Crockspot 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia article should, of course, conform to all Wikipedia policies. Which means that this article should be properly sourced. However, there is no Wikipedia policy requiring infromation on the same subject to be worded in the same way when it's covered in more than one article. -- noosphere 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We should probably have some sort of informal vote on this issue so that a consensus can be established whether this information belongs on this page or just the election page. Remember 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The New Republic

It is well documented that the New Republic is a leftist magazine. If you contend otherwise, I am more than happy to document. Many AmGovt textbooks state this very clearly.--Fix Bayonets! 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But this article is not about the magazine, and the material you propose simply doesn't belong here. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Leftist" is certainly POV. Some on the left even describe TNR as part of the right or neoconservative (see Kos, for example). Martin Peretz, part owner of TNR, is arguably not a liberal at all. I would personally describe the magazine as a whole as center-left, but that's simply my POV. In any event, what is the need to describe TNR's political point of view in the article text? After all, we're not dealing with its political point of view in the text, but rather facts reported in the magazine related to George Allen, which Allen and his campaign have confirmed. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in order to reveal The New Republic's inherent bias and NPOV, it must be revealed that New Republic is a leftist publication. I have documented this clearly.--Fix Bayonets! 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But what is the relevance of pointing out TNR's "inherent bias" when it merely reported facts confirmed by Allen??? · j e r s y k o talk · 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Allen HAS NOT confirmed each and every, or even a majority of the accusations of the N.R. This article is clearly just as user Gibby... described... a hit piece by leftists. It is not NPOV. It is not even written well.--Fix Bayonets! 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, your source is a book from 1988. Umm, TNR has changed quite a bit since 1988 . . . but again, the question is relevance, not accuracy of the description. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this article. There is no consensus to keep it. It is being removed. If you replace it again you will be reported for WP:3RR. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus to keep it either. You violated 3RR first. If have started an RFC.--Fix Bayonets! 21:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And what is the link to this RfC? --StuffOfInterest 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I was thinking it was an old format RfC where a separate page is started. --StuffOfInterest 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Reverting POV vandalism is not a 3RR violation; I've been doing it all day and will continue as long as individuals are inserting nonsense into this article. I have no interest in politics whatsoever, just trying to maintain our standards. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

---

RFC: Description of The New Republic

Note: This section is linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics.

The text at issue, in this section of the article, now reads:

The May 8, 2006 and the May 15, 2006 issues of the The New Republic reported extensively on Allen's long association with the Confederate flag. The magazine reported that "[a]ccording to his colleagues, classmates, and published reports, Allen has either displayed the Confederate flag – on himself, his car, inside his home – or expressed his enthusiastic approval of the emblem from approximately 1967 to 2000." Allen wore a Confederate flag pin for his high school senior class photo. In high school, college, and law school, Allen adorned his vehicle with a Confederate flag. In college he displayed a Confederate flag in his room. He displayed a Confederate flag in his family's living room until 1992. Allen has stated that the flag was a part of a collection of flags. In 1993, Allen's first statewide TV campaign ad for governor included a Confederate flag. Greg Stevens, the political consultant who made the 1993 TV ad, confirmed that the ad included a Confederate flag.

The issue is whether the beginning of that text should be changed to:

The May 8, 2006 and the May 15, 2006 issues of the left-of-center magazine The New Republic reported extensively ...

[The added cite - #3 - is to a 1988 textbook.] John Broughton | Talk 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, per my comments in the subsection of talk right above this one. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, also per my comments above. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• No; as others have pointed out, this is an inappropriate forum for discussing the New Republic's biases. The article on The New Republic already has a section devoted to such discussion, and hashing out that debate on this page is irrelevant and possibly POV. Also agree that a 1988 textbook is not a reliable source for the magazine's current biases. Schi 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, for the same reasons above. Remember 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, for the reasons given by Schi Jasper23 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, TNR has moved well to the right in recent years, but neither its current tilt nor its former one should be addressed in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• i'll let this "left of center" in if you guys would stop removing the reference to allen's people assualting mike stark. This is terrific! 00:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

extra comments

The intent of my RFC was to seek the opinion of non-concerned neutral parties, not to prompt the present editors (who may have historical pattern of editing on this particular issue) to re-state their opposition. thanks.--Fix Bayonets! 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I count the votes so far as 6.5 to .5, against your proposed change. Some people who might think that ignoring the opinions of so many other editors would be a violation of WP:AGF. John Broughton | Talk 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

General behavior

• Comment, though only tangentially related to this Rfc, I wanted to note that I have reported Fix Bayonets!'s behavior in this and other articles here. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

Why is 20%...yes I did a word count...20% of this entire article devoted to the pathetic "racist" attack? In every political race in the nation, there are dozens and dozens of stupid ad-hominem attacks. Mud-slinging. Dirt. Wiki, showing its leftist bias (and this is well known) proves that it loves to mud-sling as well. The personal attacks on Webbs page represent only a small fraction of his page, and that is how it should be here. You stupid bigoted leftists just love to include all the "facts" over every minutia attack on every republican politician's wiki page. You guys are pathetic. Dont tell me NPOV. That is a lie. If this was NPOV you would NOT have over 1000 words of a 5000 word article devoted to a single mud-sling. Bigots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.112.2 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for your insights, they'll certainly prove useful. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If wingnuts on one side of the aisle claim Wikipedia is Liberal, and wingnuts on the other side claim Wikipedia is Conservative, Wikipedia must be doing something right.--Rosicrucian 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry, maybe the next time a Republican candidate makes a racist remark, Wikipedia will ignore it. Gzuckier 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You tried...you tried so hard. You leftist wiki's buffed up Webbs page. We learn about him being a decorated war hero. We learn about his success, his upstanding life. We learn about his novels. Not a single section on controversy. And then you come to Allens page. You wiki leftists fill up Allen's page with controversey. Every piece of mud flung at allen gets a spotlight. You cite NPOV sources like "The Nation" ROFL! Yea, what a NPOV site. Lets use The Nation, the self-proclaimed Pillar of Leftism to substantiate an Allen accusation. Dont tell me Wiki is NPOV. Its well known that WIki is biased left. Google it. The disparity between the allen and webb pages are huge. You cover up your fraud under the "NPOV" blanket but you know dam well what you are doing. You are trying to control knowledge. You are trying to silence the conservative voice by trolling wiki. This Allen article was written by and is controlled by leftists. You know it. I know it. And as hard as you tried to sway the election..YOU FAILED. Wiki takes another hit due to the manipulation and forced dogma by leftists in the name of "NPOV" Don't kid yourselves. You are full aware of what your mission is here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.112.2 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

Somebody may be gloating a bit too soon. As of 12:44 AM Nov 7 EST, George Allen is behind by 0.08% with 99.26% of precincts reporting. We'll know in a couple of weeks after the recount is finished... Emcee 05:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The liberal cabal who control the media, wikipedia, and world finance will NOT BE THWARTED!!!! Gzuckier 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Everybody calm down, please. WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA (even when they're just targeting the community at large), etc.

Atlant 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. Metlin 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Presidential ambitions

Even if he wins when the absentees are counted, I think his presidential ambitions just went out the window. --Amcalabrese 23:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say if it will remain. Best to wait and see if he rules out a presidential run in an actual statement.--Rosicrucian 01:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare him to Nixon in 1962. Plus, people still consider John Edwards for '08 and the whole reason he ran in '04 is because he knew he could not win releection to the Senate. If McCain somehow wins the nom for the GOP, an Allen for VP pick could help keep Conservatives from ignoring the GOP in '08 like they did in '06.--Bedford 03:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Allen is still currently serving as Senator

While I am personally overjoyed at the tentative results from Tuesday's election, we must remain objective and report the facts as they are, not as they will be. Allen's term is not up until Jan. 3rd, 2007, when then, and only then will he cease to be the incumbent Senator. Stealthound 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Current Election Tag

Should we take this off, because Allen conceded? Bearly451 talk 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Middle name being 'Jewish'

Whether some idiot reporter from Fox News declared Felix to be a 'Jewish' name or not is completely irrelevant and so I've deleted it. Felix is a Latin name from the Roman Empire and is derived from the word meaning, "Happy" or "Prosperous". Quoting some fool from Fox News making a basic error is like quoting a virgin on the topic of sexual intercourse. These sorts of basic mistakes are what make wikipedia laughable.Iamlondon 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Peggy Fox is a reporter for a CBS affiliate, WUSA. Some might think it's absurd to assume that anyone whose last name is Fox works for Fox News. Anyways, she did not assert that Felix was a Jewish name; she was asking Allen if he was Jewish, because his grandfather, whose name was Felix, was reported (in the Forward, I believe) to be Jewish. I'm not sure what edit resulted in the version that you're referring to, but previous versions said: At a debate on September 18, 2006, WUSA-TV reporter Peggy Fox asked Allen "It has been reported that your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?" This is actually somewhat important, because it indicates how the whole discovery of Allen's Jewish heritage came up in the first place. Schi 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, see, that is far more illuminating, and clearly crucial - I would recommend putting your quote in before the stating of the date of the public statement Allen made. The sentence that was in there before I removed it simply said that Ms Fox had said that because he had 'jewish middle name, Felix' did that mean he was Jewish, etc etc. This happens a lot - people read something somewhere, decide to put in their version on Wiki and the whole statement looks amateur. Highly recommend inclusion of your quote - well done for finding it!Iamlondon 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated it. Schi 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Presidential bid

Do we have any updated info on a potential presidential bid? What are the experts saying regarding his chances, etc. (i.e. now after the mid term elections) Mad Jack 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they are "letting the dust settle", which is a WP policy. McCain is very instrumental in the GOP's defeat this time, so conservatives will want another option. Other than Mitt Romney, I don't see much else.--Bedford 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How was McCain very instrumental in the GOP's defeat? McCain is a member of the GOP. And he's on the conservative side of the Repulican party, compared with the Neo-Con Bush side... so personally I think he's unscathed for a 2008 run at the presidency. Jonemerson 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that the Wiki talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not for use as a general message board.

Atlant 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)