Talk:George Allen (American politician)

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 complaintants 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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)