Talk:George Felix Allen/Archive 1/1c

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Almanac

In the course of my edit this morning I removed information cited to the Almanac of American Policits, 1994, from the article. The information read

This occurred because the Justice Department required Virginia to draw a majority-black district in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act and Virginia's Democratic legislature wished to eliminate a Republican seat. See Barone and Ujifusa, Almanac of American Politics 1994

I removed it because the explanations given appeared to be somewhat conflicting and, since I don't have the source, I was not able to confirm exactly what it said. Allon Fambrizzi added it back in, in a slightly different form,

Virginia's Democratic legislature wished to eliminate a Republican seat. See Barone and Ujifusa, Almanac of American Politics 1994.

What, exactly, does the source say? Does it say the redistricting was done because of Voting Rights Act concerns, gerrymandering, or some odd combination of both? · j e r s y k o talk · 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The concepts are in tension, but consistent. At the time, the Bush Justice Department interpreted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to say that covered states -- including Virginia -- had to draw majority-minority districts with about 65 percent African-American populations, in rough proportion to the state's black population, for an apportionment to treat blacks fairly under the 14th Amendment. (See the gerrymandering article to treat yourself to a short explanation, or if you just want to short out a brain cell or two.) At the same time, the Democrats in charge of the state legislature wanted to accomplish that in a way that screwed Republicans out of a seat. As someone who had just gotten to Washington, Allen came across to Democratic legislators as an easy target -- so as they created a majority-minority seat, they carved up his district.
I don't have access to the '94 Almanac, but I lived in Allen's district at the time, followed the various intrigues as one of Larry Sabato's campaigns and elections students, and did seminar study on voting rights law at U-Va. Law. The first attempt to cite the almanac -- the one that offers both the VRA and the political gamesmanship explanations -- sums the story up as well as you can in a sentence. For what it's worth, I don't think we risk much by adding that info back. --GGreeneVa 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the explanation. I agree with your conclusion. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Noose

Anyone have a comment on this? An anon is wanting to create the new subsection for the "noose" issue under the "controversies" subsection; my response is "yes, it's a controversal thing to do, but the media coverage of it has not been the same as with the other controversies, so don't think it needs a section of its own." Policy-wise, I think undue weight might be relevant. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine where it is. Controversies should be used for larger chunks of text that break the continuity of flow if left in the middle of an article. A couple of sentences, on the other hand, gives context to a section, making it less a recital of dry facts.
I do wonder, however, if the noose was in the law office he had in 1978-81, or the one in 1998-2000. (I'd check the article myself for clues, but it seems to be limited to subscribers only.) If the first, then the info should be moved to a different section. (And if the latter, why "law and order" when he was doing business development consulting?) John Broughton 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reported User:132.241.246.111 for violations of the 3rr. No fan of George Felix Allen, but also no fan of disruptive and POV behavior. If you want to rant, take it to the appropriate newsgroup/forum/blog. Stirling Newberry 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. And if you really believe you have a valid point, you can always forego the rant and engage in rational discussion on a talk page, too. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Council of Conservative Citizens

Sorry to jump in out of turn, but I reverted that section a couple of days back to fix two problems:

  • First, the New York Times endnote only makes sense as a reference to the objective fact that the Council of Conservative Citizens descended from the White Citizens' Councils. This is the lede of the cited NYT article, which I relied on in making that factual statement (emphasis mine):
“ Many Southern politicians become experts at striking a delicate balance between celebrating their region and its heritage without endorsing the uglier aspects of its racial history.

But, as with his remarks last week in praise of Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign for the presidency in 1948, Senator Trent Lott, the incoming majority leader, has walked closer to the most incendiary reaches of Southern history and politics than almost any other major contemporary Southern politician.

Mr. Lott once told the Convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform" and then expounded on those remarks in Southern Partisan, a magazine that celebrates the Confederacy and Southern values and traditions. Mr. Lott, while in Congress, had a column that ran periodically in the magazine of the far-right Council of Conservative Citizens, an outgrowth of the segregationist White Citizens Council, and he has spoken at the group's meetings and met with its leaders in Washington.

 ”
I know you can only read it in Lexis or Times Select, but I'd be happy to send a Word-formatted copy of the article (downloaded from Lexis) to anyone curious enough to ask. In the alternative, we can boot the NYT reference altogether, if people come to that consensus.
  • Second, somehow we cut out the sentence that holds that paragraph together: the one explaining that Lott had gotten himself photographed w/ CCC leaders. I put that back in, because the article as it stood referenced "that snapshot" apropos of nothing.

Glad to respond to any feedback. --GGreeneVa 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

GGreeneVa, you just reverted my edit, giving the justification, "please see the comments and improve the CCC section, rather than reverting it to an incorrect state". I assume you were referring to your comments above, but I don't understand why. What relevance do your comments above have to my edit? And why do you call a quoting The Nation article "incorrect"? -- noosphere 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Two reasons: (1) Putting the Nation quote in front of the NYT cite makes the NYT reference no longer make sense; and (2) the relationship of the White Citizens' Councils to the CCC is a matter of objective fact, rather than something the Nation turned up. Just the same, even the NYT called the White Citizens' Councils segregationist, so I updated the section a second ago to make that point. --GGreeneVa 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that makes more sense. I am fine with citing the NYT as support for the claim that the WCC was segregationist. However, The Nation quote you deleted also makes reference to the CCC being "among the largest white supremacist groups", which the wording you put in completely omits. -- noosphere 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
An explanation for my two reverts: we have a legitimate disagreement about this one. My point is that this article is far from balanced or neutral, and if it is not necessary to include directly in this article (i.e., the reader can click on CCC to read all about it), and further contributes to the non-NPOV nature of the article, maybe we can do without it. I would support moving up the sentence regarding the SPLC to the top of the section, as it would give a quick introduction as to what the CCC is all about and would not add any additional negative information (which this article has plenty of). Regarding my second edit, making this mess out of the references section or mentioning the source twice is not appropriate format. Please see footnote 47 in this, as of now, current version of the article (Sen. Allen's remarks spark ire) for a better way to cite. Also, I think it would be helpful for you to be more reserved as opposed to labeling another editor's edits as vandalism, especially since multiple editors have reverted these same edits of yours (Jersyko and I) and another (GGreeneVa) has also done a partial revert, yet none of us has listed rvv in the edit description. Also, I purposely made each revert separately to give the benefit of a proper explanation. Thanks. Ufwuct 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Leaving material off isn't not being NPOV. Arbusto 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
But striving for balance is. Ufwuct 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "the policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." So The Nation quote provides background on what the CCC is and where it originated.
This completely conforms with WP:NPOV, in that by quoting The Nation article, we present the view that the CCC is "among the largest white supremacist groups", but we do not assert it (since we are attributing that view to The Nation). This is a fair and objective presentation of that view.
Second, I don't understand your problem with me using the convention of adding the letter "v" to the end of "rv" for every revert I make. This is how I keep track of the number of reverts I make in a day to make sure I don't accidentaly violate the three revert rule. Whether other people use that convention or not in their edit summaries is irrelevant. -- noosphere 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It's good to keep track to make sure you don't violate the 3RR rule. The vast majority of editors will interpret "rvv" to mean "revert vandalism". To understand why others might get this idea, please see RV (disambiguation) (rv stands for "revert"), and RVV (where rvv is meant to mean "revert vandalism"). Thanks. Ufwuct 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And, by the way, where do you get the idea that reverting multiple times, or reverting where multiple editors have reverted my edit is vandalism? Anyway, half the people who've reverted me have been anonymous or new users. Most of them are probably the socks of the same user. -- noosphere 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully, my above comment clarifies what I meant. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-American mother?

As I said before, this article still appears to have disagreement over its POV nature (or lack thereof). One of the edits I had hoped would be relatively non-controversial apparently was controversial and was was reverted. I cannot understand why a quote from his mother helps the reader understand George Allen better. If the consensus is that this should stay (and if it turns out that we have to vote on every edit) and that this information is essential to the article, then it would seem that this would further delay removing the POV/neutrality tag. Ufwuct 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's quite typical of biographies to provide information on the subject's parents (including information on what the parents thought), if that information available. I personally do think it helps to understand that person. For example, knowing that a subject's parents were fundamentalist Christians might (in some people's eyes) help to explain why the subject might have a sexual dysfunction, or why they hate Christians now that they're adults.
Now, these are purely hypothetical deductions for a purely hypothetical biography subject, but they are the kind of conclusions some people might draw from information given on what this hypothetical subject's parents thought. Generally, I don't think it's too far off the mark to think that the readers of a biography would be interested in anything reasonably relevant to the subject, especially anything that may have influenced them, or that they may have influenced. And it's also quite reasonable to think that what parents think influences their children in some fashion.
In this particular case, the view attributed to Allen's mother sounds like a quite strong one, and would therefore be more likely to have strongly influenced Allen in some fashion. But I am not here to draw conclusions regarding what that influence might have been, or even that there was necessarily an influence. We should leave such analysis to the readers of the article. But they won't be able to make anything of it at all if they don't know it happened. As biographers I think it's appropriate to present this information to the readers and let them make up their own minds. -- noosphere 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but only with proper context (see my comments below), since, as you have noted, it is quite a strong comment that she made. I plan to add that context in the form of these words:
she was ashamed that she had given up her French citizenship to become a citizen of a country she deemed infantile. George Allen, on the other hand has long been enamored of the rural culture of the U.S., particularly that of the South."[4]
This addition of text comes from the same source, so there is no need to find a new one. I don't know if there's any information regarding her continued belief in her previous sentiments (or if she has now disavowed this), but I won't expect to find it in the TNR article. Comments on the wording? Ufwuct 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. But shouldn't it be "enamored with" not "enamored of"? -- noosphere 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I've seen both usages (but maybe "enamored of" is antiquated usage), but "enamored with" does sound better. Thanks for catching that. Ufwuct 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, noosphere, if you have comments regarding my proposed changes to the article (or have any other suggestions regarding the POV topic), I would appreciate your input on the talk pages, rather than not participating in the discussion and then reverting my edits. I think this would be preferable for all involved. Thank you. Ufwuct 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am participating in the discussion. Just look at the edit summaries. I give my reasons for what I do, and respond to what the other editors say. -- noosphere 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to go out of my way to make sure my edits are pleasing enough not to be reverted. If you have objections, please tell me before I make edits (as I have telegraphed my moves days in advance) so that we don't get caught in edit wars. Thanks. Ufwuct 02:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, you could try creating a section clearly outlining each proposed change and starting a straw poll on that change. But even that is no guarantee that you won't be reverts. -- noosphere 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not looking for guarantees, I'm just looking to improve my odds. I'll try to save the straw polls for when they are necessary, but thanks for the suggestion. Ufwuct 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the context is what is lacking from the quote. Does Allen's mother still feel this way? Is Allen also un-American? Or are his opinions different? The way that the section reads now, seems to imply that he is un-American by association with his mother or by his upbringing. Is this true? I think a little context might be helpful to avoid giving a potentially incorrect impression. Ufwuct 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Great questions. If you find the answers and can cite a reliable source I encourage you to put those answers in the article. But not having those answers is no reason to omit otherwise relevant and well-cited information. -- noosphere 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with the wording proposed above by Ufwuct. Aside from any NPOV concerns, the current blurb about his mother seems out of context without some attempt to tie it to Allen himself. Yes, biographies often discuss the subject's parents. But they almost never discuss them in such a cursory fashion. I'm not saying we need a chapter on his mother here, but we need something more than what we have simply from a stylistic standpoint. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would improve the flow of the article to tie it in with Allen, and have some sort of smooth transition. However, I would not omit relevant and well-sourced claims just because the article's flow might be interrupted. Maybe putting such isolated claims in a "trivia" section of some sort would be more appropriate. -- noosphere 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look back on the passage, it appears as part of the "Family and early years" section in the article, and is placed among the other comments regarding Allen's family. I think it fits fine. -- noosphere 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the link to the source provided does not show the quote in the article. For any that are interested, do a Google search for:

George Allen's mother, infantile, un-American

The link with the same url should appear high on the list (2nd as of 9-6-2006) with the same url as the one listed. I would add the url from the google cache, but I'm not sure if this would be a copyright violation. Ufwuct 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is in the article, it's just not on the first paragraph, which is all non-subscribers get to see. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on Google caches in particular. However, WP:C says, "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." -- noosphere 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys/gals: Thanks for the input. It looks like this guy is one controversial character, so these changes are likely to be contentious. I'll try to make the changes one at a time and look forward to working with you guys/gals soon. Ufwuct 03:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Macaca Controversy

The section is presently the largest in the article. That is undue weight, not to mention duplicating info from the election article. That's why I moved it. We attempted to debate this, but nobody spoke up for several weeks, so I moved it again. Perhaps someone can justify why an election event that will likely just be trimmed significantly after the election belongs here and not the election's article?--Rosicrucian 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm ok with a text move now, as long as it is summarized here. I would not have reverted your edit to the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're correct about the section eventually being shortened (and I think drastically so). The election article should preserve the material for those interested in the controversy. I also think it solves a large put of the undue weight/POV problem. I also agree with Jersyko, that a short mention of a few sentences regarding the controversy is sufficient, but it is also necessary as well. Ufwuct 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I used the main article tag to provide a quick link to the full text.--Rosicrucian 21:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The editor who reverted you, Rosicrucian, has made other questionable edits to this article (see section below), fyi. Perhaps you should just revert the revert. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just did. The reinsertion of the text made a mess of the section anyway.--Rosicrucian 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to make sure: this was actually the original section on the Macaca controversy, and the version in the Virginia Senate election article was the (often somewhat dated) duplicate. Did we make sure to reconcile the two versions before cutting this one?
I agree with the undue weight assessment -- just want to make sure we preserve valid information in the process of correction. --GGreeneVa 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I copied the section over wholecloth before truncating, yes.--Rosicrucian 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks-- GGreeneVa 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Macaca controversy got much more media attention than pretty much anything else in the entire article. So I don't think it's undue weight to emphasize it. In fact, de-emphasizing it would put undue weight on the rest. -- noosphere 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

After the last revert I started the topic up here to establish consensus. Most agreed with my action, so I truncated the section again. You have reverted it back again I see. While I feel the Macaca controversy needs to be chronicled, I ultimately feel it's more germane to the election article than to Allen's article, at least at the level of detail presented. I think it's all too easy to put too much detail into a section because it's a current event, but as far as Allen's article as a whole is concerned, it should not be the largest section in the article.--Rosicrucian 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, this is about Allen, not about the election. Allen said it, and the controversy was about whether he was a racist for saying it. Whether he'd said it during the runup to the election is of secondary importance. -- noosphere 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
With respect, Noosphere, it seems that consensus might be developing in favor of truncating the Macaca controversy description here. I am not an Allen fan. I believe that the Macaca controversy must be discussed in detail on Wikipedia. However, I think Rosicrucian's rationale as to why it should be discussed extensively in the election article and summarized here is convincing. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The only argument I've seen for putting it in the election article is that here the space devoted to the controversy places undue weight on it. But that's not convincing, as I've said above, because the media attention it attracted is more than the media attention to the whole rest of the article. So is there another argument? -- noosphere 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed...again (with Rosicrucian and Jersyko). The media has a short memory. If anything, Rosicrucian's edits are meant to preserve the material, not delete it. He/she has moved it to a more appropriate article. Ufwuct 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no more appropriate article. Allen said it, therefore it should be in the article on Allen. -- noosphere
It was an event that happened on the campaign trail in the Virginia US Senate election of 2006. Given that other events are explored in more detail in that article than in the candidates' individual articles, I see no reason why the Macaca incident should be any different. To put it into perspective as I've attempted to do above, will this section merit anywhere near this level of detail in Allen's article after the election is over? If not, why should we waste work and words on it in this article when ultimately the only place those words will be preserved is the election article?--Rosicrucian 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
We're not in the business of predicting the future. If some day Allen attracts more media attention than when used the word "macaca", such as if he becomes President, then that incident will deserve more coverage. Until then, the sheer weight of the media coverage alone demands thorough treatment. Yes, Allen might have said it on the campaign trail, but odds are people interested in the "macaca" incident are going to be searching for "George Allen" and not "Virginia US Senate election of 2006". -- noosphere 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If macaca was being excised from this article entirely, I would agree with you. But it's not. The information is summarized in this article with a prominent link to the other article that explains it in more detail. A person searching for information about macaca would find what s/he was looking for. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, this is not without precedent to move the details of an incident from an article on a U.S. senator to another main article. In Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_incident, a main article is devoted to a scandal. Not to mention that this is probably a much bigger scandal which people do still talk about 37 years later. However, keeping all the details of the incident on Ted Kennedy's article would be undue weight, so it's good that is was moved elsewhere. I also like how is voting record is talked about. Though Kennedy has a much longer political record, I'm confident that we can come up with something similar for George Felix Allen. Ufwuct 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, see the article on Fifth_Quarter:_The_Scrimmage_of_a_Football_Coach's_Daughter. This topic has its own separate article, where additional content is mentioned, and it also includes book reviews. This is appropriate. It would be inappropriate to put all of this material in the main George Felix Allen article (even if the book reviews were left out). Again, the proposed action (to move the bulk of the Macaca controversy to Virginia_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 would not be anything out of the ordinary. Ufwuct 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So far I count myself and three others supporting, and one vehemently in dissent. Is there a compromise that can be reached? I am more than willing to expand the truncated section in my revision with more detail to provide better context, but I really don't think the whole section needs to be in there verbatim. Your thoughts?--Rosicrucian 23:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree still (with you edits and your willingness to compromise). I see that your version explained his actions, and what the word has been interpreted to mean. Your version explained who Sidarth was and why he was at the event. It also explained the net result, as of now (a drop in the polls). The only other thing I could think to add is that some interpreted this as a racist comment (e.g. ..."macaque". Many have considered this a racist comment. (though I trust you to use better wording than I could here.)). I doubt this small compromise will win over any converts though. Cheers. Ufwuct 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait maybe until Saturday to let people voice dissent and/or propose compromises. If there's nothing new, I'll try this again with the revision suggestions you've given.--Rosicrucian 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Consider my dissent voiced, for the reasons I've given above. No one has offered any new arguments as to why this section should be truncated, and I've already responded to the old ones, so I feel there's really not much more to say than that I oppose shortening the section. -- noosphere 03:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No one has offered any new arguments as to why this section should be truncated...
There appear to be 8 edits in this section of the talk page between this diff and this diff. A new suggestion (for compromise/improvement of the article) and a few supporting points to the argument were offered.
so I feel there's really not much more to say than that I oppose shortening the section.
You don't have to participate in the discussion and no one is forcing you to, but others are trying to reach a compromise. If you have any suggestions for a compromise, they would be welcomed. I also think that since a consensus seems to be forming, it would be in your best interests (and possibly in the best interests of the article quality) to compromise, rather than having one side emerge as the "winner". Thanks. Ufwuct 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my point. I don't want to exclude anyone, but without any wiggle room except "don't do it" I pretty much have to go with the majority of people in this discussion that are telling me to go ahead.--Rosicrucian 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There continues to be news that relates to the Macaca controversy and there will likely be more as the election approaches. For instance, Allen holds 'ethnic rally': He combats recent stumble by reaching out to diverse group, US senator who called Indian man 'Macaca' decides to turn down community leadership award. With the news continuing to develop, one of the following will happen:

  1. The new news will be left out
  2. The existing material will be deleted
  3. This section will continue to grow in length. The POV tag will never be removed and article quality will deteriorate.
  4. The relevant material will be moved to the election article, as was suggested before.

Let's put most this material where it belongs, in its own article where it will get a more thorough treatment.

Other news about the campaign includes: Campaign worker for George Allen avoids trespassing charges, which would also belong in the election article, not this one. I await any comments. Thanks. Ufwuct 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you know my position on this. After nearly a week with fairly strong support, I'm about to move ahead and just do it.--Rosicrucian 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You have my support, and I think the support of others too. I've made my compromise suggestion and can't think of any more material that needs to be in this specific article regarding the incident. Go ahead, or I'll make the chages if you'd prefer. Thanks. Ufwuct 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's done, with the additional requested context included. Feel free to tweak as needed.--Rosicrucian 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish heritage?

The anon who keeps posting that Allen is Jewish in the article posted this message on my talk page:

Jersyko removed a link as supporting evidence due to the link allegedly quoting Wikipedia as a source. This is a disingeuous interpretation of the article at that link: http://www.forward.com/articles/alleged-slur-casts-spotlight-on-senator%E2%80%99s-jewis/ The article does not state or imply that Wikipedia is a source for its information. The passage in the article which mentions Wikipedia is the following: "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows users to draft and edit the entries, takes Allen’s mother’s Judaism as a given, saying that “Henrietta Lumbroso was a Jewish immigrant of Tunisian/Italian/French background.”" It is clear from the wording of the above passage that the author intended only to illustrate the phenomenon of Wikipedia users assuming George Allen's Jewish heritage. The Author does not express or imply that her intent is to quote Wikipedia as a source for her information. "The Foward," the newspaper in which the article appears, is a respected publication that has the same standards as similar widely-distributed news sources. Jersyko's decision to remove the link and the update to the George Allen page was a clear case of wanton and irresponsible editing. Jersyko either did not read the article thoroughly, coming to the false conclusion that it intended its reference to Wikipedia to be considered a source, or he is abusing his privelege to edit and remove other users' posts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) . 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that an unsourced journal article with "(Jewish?)" in its title establishes that the man is Jewish -- and, in fact, it does not. -- Jibal 12:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the message's incivility, it's just wrong. The source says "it is likely that she’s Jewish by birth, although no acknowledgment of that heritage appears in the memoir." The source then goes on to present evidence that lends credibility to the claim that his mother could be Jewish, but does not definitively prove that she is. And the article does cite Wikipedia as a source, meaning it has problems as a reliable source (I'm not casting doubt on the entire news source's reliability, but only this article's). Nowhere does the article say "Allen is Jewish" or "Allen's mother is Jewish," which is what the anon is saying in his/her edits to this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The insertion also mangles the sentence structure. I could accept perhaps "A Jew of French Tunisian descent" but stringing the words together to say "of French Tunisian Jewish descent" is straining the sentence. Beyond this, there is no indication that Allen was raised Jewish and so he is not really meriting the "Jewish Americans" category.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made by Ma ca ca, Ma ca, Macacaca, and Macaca, I think there is no need to mention his Jewish heritage in the very first sentence of the article. These sources suggest that he is a practicing Presbyterian,[1] [2] [3] [4][5] which is a denomination of Christianity. So regardless of his background, saying he is Jewish in the first sentence is extremely misleading, if not plain wrong. Plus the source is way too POV for the first sentence. If it is needed to substantiate a claim elsewhere in the article, that's fine, but just not in the introduction. Regarding the adjective "controversial", I don't see how this source provides some vital information necessary to prove that he is in fact controversial. It's not as if pollsters asked people "Do you think George Allen is a controversial figure?". Plus, there is plenty of other information presented in the article to demonstrate this aspect of George Allen — that he is controversial (that is by showing in which controversies he has been involved) — almost all of which is presented without awkwardly shoehorning a source into the first sentence. If you would like to add it, I suggest that you should find a way to add it in the section which mentions a drop in his poll numbers due to the Macaca controversy. Ufwuct 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ufwuct. Also, note that any information not sourced to reliable sources can be removed from an ariticle on a living person per an exception to WP:3RR. A political blog is not a reliable source to demonstrate Allen's Jewishness. I've requested protection for the article, fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The sudden emergence of a sockfarm whose edits are identical to User:169.253.4.21 is a little disturbing, and likely could be considered disruption.--Rosicrucian 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that but have delayed labeling that user a sockpuppet, as it wasn't as quite blatantly obvious. Ufwuct 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As I hypothesized on Jersyko's talk page, I think this is a very experienced Wikipedian (see the oldest edits).[6] Ufwuct 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's likely, I think. He recently was admonished if it was wise to edit using an IP connected to a state department computer, and suddenly there's not one of him but three.--Rosicrucian 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"...state department computer..." — This is news to me. Who admonished him/her? The state department? ;) Or Wikipedia? Ufwuct 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's on his talkpage. [7]--Rosicrucian 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's often interesting to see where the anons are coming in from. There is a frequent negative-editor on Jim Webb's page coming from some national "stone" organization. I guess Webb isn't popular among rock crushers. :) --StuffOfInterest 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've formally organized them under a single sock category. I've left it as suspected for now though, as they haven't proven abusive yet.--Rosicrucian 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The article has been put under sprotect as a result -- how abusive does it have to get? -- Jibal 12:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
At first I was going to say that since these socks are registered the sprotect couldn't have been directed at them. However I suppose it would stop them, given that they're newly registered. Upon further examination they also seem to have been created specifically to circumvent 3RR and bait regular editors on this article into violating 3RR.--Rosicrucian 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All we really need here are Wiki's basic policies. Per the manual of style, ethnicity/religion isn't mentioned in the header anyway, so even if he was 100% Jewish the article shouldn't start with "George Allen is a Jewish etc." Ethnicity/religion goes under "Early life", I guess, which currently has bits and pieces on his ancestry. The Forward does pass WP:RS, and no, it doesn't use Wikipedia as a source, but just mentions that Wikipedia seems to have assumed his mother is Jewish and stated it as fact (which we shouldn't have done). So, we could mention "it has been speculated by source X that Allen's mother is of Jewish ancestry", using the Forward as a source. Mad Jack 20:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is "biased and slanted", should be deleted

The article on George Allen is the most biased and slanted Wikipedia article I've ever seen.

It should be deleted for the credibility of Wikipedia itself. 20:25, 9 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk • contribs)

Not very constructive unless you can give examples.--Rosicrucian 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several of us working to improve the article, rather than delete it altogether. An all-or-nothing attitude, which has been demonstrated by some editors to this article is less than helpful. Ufwuct 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please explain what is biased and offer ways to improve the article. That is more constructive than attacks on wikipedia as a whole. Arbusto 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Both sides have claimed...

I have removed the assertion that both sides have claimed that the photo of Sidarth supports their position. I requested a source (that both "sides" made this assertion) on August 17. I did a quick google search before added the request for a source and couldn't find anything about Webb's campaign or Sidarth claiming that that photo supported their case (although Sidarth had claimed before that he had a mullet). Since no one else has been able to come up with a source in that time, I changed the wording, removing the assertion that Sidarth's "side" had claimed that the photo backed up his previous assertion.

Also, I changed the wording to reflect that this photo of him shows something quite the opposite of what most people would consider a mullet. A mullet (see pictures) is usually short in the front (and sometimes shorter on the sides), combined with longer hair at the bottom and the usually at the sides. A mohawk, on other hand, is shaved on the sides (which Sidarth's hairstyle shows) and longer in the middle of the head, usually from the forehead all the way to the neck (which Sidarth's hairstyle shows). Usually, the hair in the middle of the head sticks up in a Mohawk. Sidarth's does not. This is why I chose not to call it a mohawk, but describe it as not typical of a mullet.

I hope that my changes are not reverted, despite waiting 3 1/2 weeks for a source (and being open to discussion the whole time), and explaining my reasons for changes here. Please let me know if you have comments (here). Thanks. Ufwuct 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I was about to mirror it on the Virginia election article, but I see you already have.--Rosicrucian 18:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN?

I don't see how the comment violates WP:OWN. It seems appropriate to warn editors that the passage is not intended to be a full account of the event, and that updates are better served being placed on a different article.--Rosicrucian 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as an OWN issue either, but at the same time I don't see the comment helping. People intent on adding more in will ignore the "main" template and add in anyway. The same thing happens to the conspiracy theories section of the 9/11 attacks article almost daily. Best you can do is try to move material over to the election article whenever you see it or delete the new additions if they are already covered in the election article. --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I might edit it back in but a bit less strongly worded.--Rosicrucian 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And now I have. Took out the all-caps and just used it as a comment to remind editors that there is more content, it's just been moved.--Rosicrucian 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
All caps were not intended to be emphatic, but just to show that it was not part of the rest of the text. I've seen very similar notes in the page source before (when there was no more effective way to communicate the message) and notes at the top of talk pages (e.g., "please peruse the talk pages before"...), even in featured articles. The comment was not intended to be directed at or even read by conspiracy theorists or those extremely committed to add their personal factoids or blurbs. Anyway, thanks for rewriting the comment. Ufwuct 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hence why I simply rephrased it to be less a "edit this way" notice and more a "you might want to check here if you think something's missing" comment. I can appreciate the spirit it was intended in, and as it's worded now it'd be hard to nix it for WP:OWN again.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are only required to follow Wikipedia policies, not injunctions from other Wikipedia users. That's why the presence of such injunctions were a violation of WP:OWN. The new wording just seems reduntant, as there's a link to the Virginia United States Senate election, 2006 article in the body of the George Allen article anyway. But, as you say, it doesn't violate WP:OWN, and I have no problem with it. -- noosphere 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)