Talk:Allen West (politician)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Spartan speech

I removed the following because because the event doesn't seem notable to me. However, if others disagree, I'm open to re-adding:

In April 2011, West contrasted feminist women with Spartans.

Arbor8 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's notable and actually deserving of elaboration. His whole speech was about how American Men are "Neutered" by Liberal Women. Offensive stuff! HypatiaX (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It should be included. A position against feminism is still nonetheless a political position, which should be notable for a politician.69.113.139.131 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical

Started to read this article and noticed the first citation about his military service in the lede is a .PDF file from the ACLU. Immediately, the integrity of the article is dubious as it smells of a hit job. I wonder how many others have been put off by this as well. Any article on Wikipedia about anyone that is one inch to the right of center is hard to take serious anymore. Why must readers be immediately hit with the ACLU PDF? Has West done nothing else of note? Smacks of undue weight. Forgive me for expressing my disappointment in this article. And now you can insult me. --64.85.214.232 (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will. This is a stupid objection. Do you have any objection about the content of the article? Does the article inaccurately portray West or his military service? You make no claims regarding these questions, instead you get the vapors about one of the footnotes. I have faith that most readers are of sterner stuff than you and won't faint at the sight of the dreaded four letter acronym. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all certainly open to adding additional sources to improve the article. That said, anon, please confine your comments here to discussion of the West article and take your hurt feelings about Wikipedia to the WP:VP or, better yet, keep them to yourself. Arbor8 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest split of "Tenure and Political Views" indexed topic

This article is rated start class at the Conservatism project. I think political views stands alone as a topic and would give this page a higher rating on the conservatism project.

I think "Tenure" should remain where it is and all the body is still appropriate for that heading.

I'd like some feedback about where in the index ordering "Political Views" should fit.

HypatiaX (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

West current residency relevant in e-mail topic?

I have removed content noting West's current congressional residency in Wasserman-Schultz's district. How does that content better inform the topic subject as more than an irrelevant aside? What is a prospective reader supposed to deduce as to its relevancy to the subject? It appears to be more of an opportunistic, POV attempt to piggy-back an old election/district residency issue long since resolved as lawful though still subject to political demagoguery. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I felt like it was relevant because in his email, he told the congresswoman to "worry about your own district" (or something very similar), so it appears as if he is criticizing her for discussing his district while he lives in hers. Does that make sense? Arbor8 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

...so it appears as if he is criticizing her for discussing his district while he lives in hers. Does that make sense?

While I'm trying to arrive at the same "sense" of what you "sense", I'm honestly drawing a blank. Why or how would West's suggestion that WS "mind her own district" and "not his" be somehow impacted, impeded or precluded by West's own residency in her district? Help me out here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My sense was just that it was ironic. In short, to reword the statements, West was asking DWS to worry about her own district (instead of him). But West is a part of her district.

It's received some attention among left-leaning commentators as well. (Ex: [1] Seleucus (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

While I've no doubt that political perspectives are more than capable of seeing "irony" here, I'd suggest that a less encumbered viewpoint might be more inclined to see "coincidence" instead? However, be it "irony" or "coincidence", I don't yet see how this content survives as either relevant to or an enhancement of the topic, do you? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's ironic or coincidental, the fact that West lambasted the congresswoman in whose district he lives is certainly relevant. In this case, exclusion feels more political to me than inclusion. Arbor8 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we want to open up the whole can of worms about congressmen not living in the districts they represent, given how common a phenomenon it is. The Slade link above even calls West's district "hideously gerrymandered", so it may be hard to blame him for it. While it is an ironic fact, I agree it doesn't really benefit the reader. The real question is, are any neutral sources mentioning this? –CWenger (^ • @) 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what's relevant isn't that West lives outside his own district, which is pretty common, but rather that he lives IN the district of the person whom he is attacking. Have seen mentions in Miami Herald, LA Times and Politico to name a few. Arbor8 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying there is something wrong or unusual about somebody attacking their congressman? Ironic for a fellow congressman to be doing it, I admit, but again, how does that benefit the reader beyond a curiosity? With that said, given the sources you provided, I am neutral about its inclusion. My only caveat is those sources, with the possible exception of the LA Times one, appear to be blog posts instead of hard news pieces and might be questionable per WP:BLPSPS. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there's something notable about someone attacking their congressman when they are a member of congress themselves. I don't think the fact that West lives in Wasserman Schultz's district is notable in and of itself, but his email to her clearly is notable and so his residency in her district is notable by extension. As far as the sourcing is concerned, I think we are safe under WP:NEWSBLOG. Arbor8 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that West lives in Wasserman Schultz's district is notable in and of itself,...

Ok so far...

...but his email to her clearly is notable...

and that too...

...and so his residency in her district is notable by extension.

Huh? "By extension"? If West had lived in Jacksonville, WS would still have made her floor comments and West would still have responded with his e-mail in kind. How does his residence in her district relate to enhancing an understanding of the subject of this topic? You say "by extension". That's empty rhetoric. Please explain? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, Politico (who broke the story), the Miami Herald and the LA Times all thought it was a relevant piece of information worthy of inclusion in the story. I don't think adding it is going to help readers reach intellectual nirvana, but I do think it is notable, relevant and on point, and so far I haven't seen a cogent explanation of why it isn't. Arbor8 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the sources, I don't see a problem with adding it as an aside to the end of the paragraph. I recommend "and demanded that she focus on her own congressional district (of which West is a resident)." (my proposed addition underlined). –CWenger (^ • @) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear, at least to me, that the residency issue is unrelated at all to the topic but is, rather, the product of 3 political junkies' ruminations (do contemporary "journalists" have their own version of WP:COATRACK?) on what type of delectable political fodder might come to fruition down the road stemming from the residency/district coincidence or an allusion to former district election squabbles. If it MUST be included, I suppose your suggested edit is probably the least painful abrogation of WP:UNDUE. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP,WP:NOTNEWSPAPER & WP:CRYSTAL

Editors will please be mindful of the WP:BLP policy provisions and the guidance provided by both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I have removed content based upon a failure to observe these Wikipedia policy/guidances. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Emails

A spat between 2 congresspersons is hardly encyclopedic. Content must have enduring notability. Will this be of interest to readers in 10 years? 5 years? Would it have lasted this long in Obama's article? From WP:NOTNEWS "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Removed the section, somewhat boldly. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the section was too long and involved, but I do think it is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere. What do you think about grouping it under a larger "Tenure" heading? Arbor8 (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of Wikipedia is data that is fairly current and of limited long-term interest, likely to not be of significant interest in 10 years. For that matter, I would guess given his volatility and thin skin, there's a good chance that Allen West will be a short-timer in Congress and this entire article will be of at most limited interest in 10 years. However, one of the points of encyclopedias is that they contain archival-type information - otherwise information on (relatively minor) political players from the 1800s wouldn't be included. Given the nature and nastiness of the "spat" (at least on his side) and also how it plays into other (questionable) public displays he has made, it seems notable for him. At the moment, West himself is of only limited notability - he is a first-term congressman with no significant bills or other congressional actions attached to him. Right now, the only really notable things about him (besides the simple fact that he is a congressman) are the fact that he is strongly associated with Tea Party groups and personalities and the various controversies he has engendered. This event (especially the fairly explicit sexism he displays, along with the clear demonstration of thin skin) seems to argue for including it with the other controversies listed. 108.74.28.81 (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it. This is so clearly WP:NOTNEWS. DaffyBridge (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the section on the e-mails should remain in the article. There are two sources which clearly indicate notability. The information is included in an encyclopedic manner and sits well in the Controversies section. ItsZippy (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The email may be relevant to the subject, but the section does not articulate how the email is controversial. As it stands, it reads like trivia: he said these things in an email. The consequence to himself, Rep. Wassermann Schultz, their respective parties or districts, or modern American politics in general -- i.e., the controversy -- is not self-evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynio (talk • contribs) 06:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dynio. Removing trivia per NOTNEWS. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

An ongoing feud between two members of Congress is not trivial. West lives in Wasserman Schultz's district and the two are both standard bearers of sorts, West for the Tea Party and Wasserman Schultz for the Democrats. The email exchange helps illustrate the feud, is well-sourced, and is notable for its harsh characterization of the Congresswoman. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of Chief of Staff Joyce Kaufman

I'm not exactly sure why this is relevant to Allen West. Perhaps she should have her own page is she is so notable. This seems like someone with a serious bias trying to make him look bad. Someone also saw this dispute coming because they included about a dozen references. Still, even with all the references, I don't see how it's relevant. DaffyBridge (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be removed as trivia. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed she never actually started working for him. Removing per consensus. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The section appears to have been reinstated. As with the email controversy section, the controversy here is not self-evident: Kaufman was not his chief of staff when he took office, the threats against her are more relevant to her than West, and West's response (made before he took office) may have been newsworthy at the time but is not clearly a controversy worth recording here. Dynio (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Three editors in favor of exclusion without any opposition on talk is clear consensus.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Residence outside of district

I would certainly say it is notable that West lives outside of his district. There is a whole section on the page of former congressman Robert Wexler. Is there anyone against this who could tell me why it is not notable? Tippx (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you say "Apart from a minor edit about wording (possessive pronoun before college degree in early life section), I am finished with this page."? And now you've decided to come back here and cause trouble? STOP TROLLING ALLEN WEST'S WIKIPEDIA PAGE, PLEASE. We've been through this before Dchip12 (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability

He is not notable for being a political candidate, but he is notable for his military service, for getting caught mistreating a prisoner, and for the comparatively light punishment he received. --Eastmain (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see more about his politics. I think they're becoming notable.

HypatiaX (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that Eastmain sticks to facts, not opinion. As reported in the press, the FACT is that LTC West fired his 9mm weapon next to the prisoner's head (NOT physically hurting him, but drastically affecting him), scaring him into giving up information that was attributed to saving some of his soldiers' lives in real time. Eastmain's OPINION that he "mistreated" a prisoner, and got "light punishment" is just that - opinion. MY opinion would be that he applied the proper amount of force given the situation, did NOT physically hurt the prisoner, saved his men's lives, and had a remarkable military career foreshortened by politically correct superiors - MY opinion.Tavennerfb (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest that Tavennerfb not behave like an apologist for this man. The fact remains that he was punished for his behavior. It was not his duty to interrogate prisoners nor had he ever done so. If you think that firing a pistol near the head of someone isn't mistreatment, then you lack humanity. Call his punishment light or political correctness, but it is what is. Since no plans or weapons were ever found, it's pretty obvious that West acted in error.Shabeki (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but regardless of anyone's opinion of the man, or his punishments, they are exactly that; opinions. They should not be included in an encyclopedic article. Mikist4 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Which is exactly why the pro-West bias needs to be excluded from the article...Shabeki (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Proper use of Military Decorations on civilian attire

My father was a Captain in the Navy (grandfather and great grandfather were also Navy/USNA grads). I remember him telling me about very specific rules concerning the wearing of military decorations, medals, insignia when dressed in civilian attire. I don't have access to the Army's rules until they are digitized and online. I question whether it is appropriate for him to wear these insignia etc he has on his lapel. If his use is in accordance with applicable rules, I have no problem. I know Medal of Honor winners and others are allowed to wear lapel ribbons, but this man's use doesn't look right to me.FrancisDane (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Black Caucus Quote

This wasn't him, it was a parody.

The snopes article here debunks it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/blackhistory.asp

I'm a bit new to this, and didn't know how to do the editing properly, so I just removed the false quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.157.30 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You did right, thank you. Yes, if anyone reintroduces material such as In light of this month being Black History Month, I feel no way involved with this negro celebration of half accomplishments and borderline Communist agendas, see this article at snopes.com. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wheels

Some editor has removed this:

He rides a Honda cruiser motorcycle,<ref name=Biker/> and a 2008 [[Hummer H3]], filling whose tank, he has complained, costs him $70.<ref>M. J. Lee, "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73218.html Allen West fills Hummer, blames Obama]", Politico, February 23, 2012. Accessed February 26, 2012.</ref><ref>"[http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpps/news/allen-west-slams-obama-over-cost-of-filling-up-his-hummer-dpgoha-20120224-fc_18203148 Rep. Allen West slams Obama over cost of filling up his Hummer]", myfoxatlanta.com, February 24, 2012. Accessed February 26, 2012.</ref>

It's charged that this is trivial, compared with West's substantive political contributions. This may be: the solution then is to add material on the latter. Go ahead. Meanwhile, West's complaints about fuel made the news. And if his choice of wheels seems too trivial, consider that in the current version of the article on Schwarzenegger (presumably closely watched by many), we learn about the man's Hummers. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Now this is strange. The material was most recently deleted by user Dken5, whose earlier edits include this one, in which he defends his addition of personal stuff and writes u think the hobbies are a threat and you're there 2 seconds after i put the much credited and valid info in. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It didn't make the "news"--it made a left wing advocacy site. And in any event, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Which of the sources given is a left-wing advocacy site? -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to note his motorcycle riding, this is pretty noteworthy and widely covered. Noting his position on high oil prices and the administration's policies also seems worth including in the political viewsw section. Trying to string stuff together based on local news coverage to make him look bad, however, is inconsistent with standard practice on this Encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversies?

Shouldn't there be a controversies section to this? Most politicians and political figures have them and West is one of the most controversy generating figures in the current congress, at least in terms of him saying things which critics regard as offensive or crazy. Has this page been sanitized by West's staff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetMeLogIn (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for the community to allow "sanitizing" – provided all material conforms to WP:BLP. – Wdchk (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me guess. You were watching Hardball on MSNBC last night and heard them claim that West or his staff was deleting negative stuff from his article. You also probably heard the host say, "If it is true it should be in there". Well, WP follows guidelines. Just because something is true, doesn't mean it automatically is included. WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are over-riding principles. Suggestion, don't watch MSNBC for information on how to use WP. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• For those who are new or inexperienced.....we don't insert everything for the sake of having a controversy. One thing that must be considered is how relevant something is. Just because something is in the news cycle for 36 hours (or a week) doesn't necessarily make it notable in the big picture. Perhaps the essay WP:RECENTISM would be helpful. Look at things in the long-term. If you have specific items to discuss, then please present them. If all you have are vague "we need a controversy section" suggestions, then you'll find little support. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You guessed wrong. I just find it odd that while virtually every other political figure has a "controversies" section, that West, who in his short time in office has made a habit of saying controversial and inflammatory things, lacks one. One obvious reason for that would be that his staff or a supporter of his was sanitizing the article, something which seems to be backed up by speedy deletion of an added "controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetMeLogIn (talk • contribs) 05:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, if you have something specific you want to discuss adding, then present it. If you have nothing other than conspiracy theories, then you won't be taken seriously. Your choice: be productive or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Contentious additions to a WP:BLP require solid sourcing, and multiple sources. In addition your additions do not meet our requirement of WP:UNDUE. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a 'controversy' section, but notable controversial comments should be included in the 'Political views' section. I've just added a line to that about West's comparison of Social Security to slavery, which seems to have received a certain amount of attention. His earlier comments about the Congressional Progressive Caucus are mentioned there too, and I think that's also worth including. But to avoid violating BLP, reliable sources must always be provided. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper. Please do not load up this article with the news of the day, if there is long lasting impact it will be a news story for the next few months. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the reference states the quote was about Social Security Disability Insurance, not the entire Social Security program. The wrong link was used. 72Dino (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing if a politician makes an off the cuff comment that causes a brief controversy. However, when a politician habitually makes extreme comments and has been doing so over a period of years, that represents something significant and worthy of reporting about that politician. This is not a single controversy, or even a few controversies, this is a significant pattern of controversies that occur on a regular basis. As such, if Wikipedia is here to report factual information on ANY topic, then this should be included. As for reliable sources, I post this and it was removed without justification:

On December 15, 2011, The Hill (newspaper) reported that West told reporters in the House of Representatives, “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine.” Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi Party, and sought to control public opinion and enforce Nazi Party ideology in Germany prior to and during World War II. In response, the National Jewish Democratic Council released a statement later in the day condemning West for “invoking the Holocaust to make a political point.”

The Hill is a reliable and well-recognized source. And this comment was significant, has been reported in a number of authoritative sources, and goes along with some of the other comments currently on this page. In addition, it represents a consistent pattern of behavior. There are many other such comments.

• Simply being reliably sourced doesn't mean it needs included. Have you even read WP:RECENTISM as I suggested? If The Hill documented that West went jogging over the weekend, does that belong in his bio? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that this represents a significant and consistent pattern of behavior over many years. This is not going jogging over the weekend! You have failed to address this FACT. What about that? Also, what is the process for having someone else look into this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.187.171 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your "fact" looks strangely like an opinion. Who said it was a "significant and consistent pattern" besides you? Maybe if your learned to separate fact and opinion, this would be easier for you. I will ask again, have you read the numerous policies, guidelines and essays referenced in this conversation? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

IP editor, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment to find out the process for having other editors review this issue. I also recommend you read the policies and guidelines already referred to on this talk page first. 72Dino (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I know how to separate fact from opinion:

FACT: West said Joseph Goebbels would be “very proud of the Democrat Party” FACT: The National Jewish Democratic Council released a statement that day condemning West for “invoking the Holocaust to make a political point.” FACT: NJDC President and CEO David A. Harris called on West to apologize to the Jewish community and “the Americans who fought valiantly to defeat the Nazis."

This in not my opinion, this is well-documented fact --- both West's statement and the response from the NJDC and Harris. In addition, how is this different from West's “not a lady” comment to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz which currently exists on West's Wikipedia page?

As for the "significant and consistent pattern" of other such comments, I will compile a more thorough list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.187.171 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• You still fail to understand what is being said. Nobody is disputing that West said those words. What IS being disputed is whether or not it is notable enough in the long term for inclusion. Further, your statement "I will compile a more thorough list" indicates that you don't understand what original research and synthesis are. You compiling a list to prove your point won't cut it. I understand that you have an agenda here and that you have some (imagined) belief that West supporters are sanitizing everything. Put that aside and familiarize yourself with the actual policies and guidelines. BTW, you might want to read WP:3RR while you are at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no agenda whatsoever. Also, I never said anything about West sanitizing his page, nor have I accused anyone else of that. I don't know where this idea comes from as I've never mentioned it. The "compiling a list" statement was in reference to your prior question of who else besides me found this to be significant. Also, I'd still like someone to answer the question: how is this different from West's “not a lady” comment to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz which currently exists on West's Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.187.171 (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• "I don't know where this idea comes from as I've never mentioned it." You just happened ot show up after that allegation was made. Coincidence? "The "compiling a list" statement was in reference to your prior question of who else besides me found this to be significant." No, you said "As for the "significant and consistent pattern" of other such comments, I will compile a more thorough list" You are trying to cobble together some sort of list to show a pattern....which is OR and SYNTH. Similarly, simply listing people who've found it significant in the news cycle won't make it notable in the longer term. "how is this different from West's “not a lady” comment" Then start a separate dicsussion about it. Diverting attention here won't work and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't convincing. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, according to the definition on Wikipedia, “The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist.” As I mentioned above, the The Hill (newspaper) --- a reliable, published source --- reported on this incident. The Hill also reported on the indignation from the National Jewish Democratic Council and NJDC President and CEO David A. Harris condemning West. As such, this is not original research. Furthermore, The Hill also reported that, “West is known for fanning controversy” --- again, a reliable, published source. According to the definition on Wikipedia, synthesis involves combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Again, The Hill explicitly stated that, “West is known for fanning controversy” --- again, a reliable, published source. This is not my opinion, nor does it appear to be original research or synthesis according to the definitions on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.187.171 (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I know damn well what OR says, so don't presume to lecture me on it. You are tkaing what is published (a quote) and using it to make a claim of "a pattern", which is OR. Find a reliable source that calls it a pattern first, then we discuss that. You calling it a pattern doesn't mean a thing becuase it is OR. "known for fanning controversy" doesn't say it is a "significant and consistent pattern" does it? No, you made that phrase up.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

From reliable, published sources:

As reported by CNN, West has a “history” of “controversial” and “attention-grabbing remarks.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/03/rnc-chairman-im-not-the-gop-police/

Again reported by CNN, Florida Rep. Allen West's “controversial comments” have “once again” landed him in the headlines. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/11/florida-rep-labels-congressional-democrats-as-communists/

As reported in the Sun Sentinel, West comment sparks “controversy” http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-12-28/news/fl-jjpn-west-1228-20111228_1_holocaust-survivors-allen-west-joseph-goebbels

Again reported by CNN, his “controversial comments” that have gotten him the most attention. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/politics/allen-west-challenges/index.html

Again reported in the Sun Sentinel, Democrats are seizing on U.S. Rep. Allen West's “latest” “controversial comments” http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2012/04/allen_west_seeks_to_capitalize_on_his_communist_comment_democrats_mock_congressman.html

As reported in U.S. News and World Report, West's status as a Tea Party poster boy has been eroded by his “controversial rants.” http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/13/allen-wests-opponent-quotes-eisenhower-to-slam-slavery-comments

As reported by NPR, West has gained a certain reputation during his 16 months in Congress for making “bombastic statements.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/11/150449510/house-republican-allen-west-78-to-81-congressional-democrats-are-communists

When numerous reliable, published sources repeatedly refer to West as making "controversial" comments, that's significant. When numerous reliable, published sources repeatedly report on West about numerous controversial statements made over many months, that's a pattern. However, I am not advocating for the use of any particular phrase. CNN reports that West has a history of making controversial comments, which is worthy of being included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.187.171 (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Until you start actually reading the policies and trying to discuss within their context, this exercise is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, what policy is it now being suggested that I am not following? I’ve read and carefully considered each policy that has been listed here:

CNN has specifically reported that West has a “history” of “controversial” remarks, and this view is supported by other reliable published sources. As reliable published sources exist for what I had attempted to include on the page in question, this would not appear to be original research.

Each of the reliable published sources provided here has explicitly included the use of the term “controversial” in reference to West’s comments. As this is not joining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion that has not been explicitly stated by any of the sources, this would not appear to be synthesis. This is not joining what’s explicitly stated in reliable source A and reliable source B to imply a different C; this is using what’s explicitly stated in reliable source A and reliable source B for what’s explicitly stated A and B.

Numerous reliable published sources have specifically referred to West as making “controversial” comments, including the West comment that was originally suggested for inclusion on his page. As this represents a significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable sources, as this is a widely held view, and as this is not a minority view, this would not appear to be undue weight. This fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, represents significant views that have been published in reliable sources.

NPR has specifically reported that West has gained a reputation during his “16 months” in Congress for making controversial statements. Furthermore, other reliable published sources have specifically indicated that West has made a number of controversial statements over a long period of time. As this supports a long-term, historical view and is not inflating the importance of a topic that has only recently received public attention, this would not appear to be recentism.

While it has been suggested otherwise, I am not here to promote controversy, nor am I here to promote a minority view. I am here because I posted relevant content about West from a reliable published source that was aligned with content that already exists on West’s page, and that content was deleted. When I posted a question about this using the link that was provided to me, it was directed to this page. As I mentioned above, I’ve read each and every policy that was suggest. And having earnestly evaluated each, I have provided a reasonable argument to suggest that they do not apply. As such, I still consider the proposed content to be relevant, to be aligned with content that already exists on West’s page, and to still be worthy of inclusion on that page. Just because someone may disagree does not make these conclusions wrong. And as you seem to be intent on keeping this relevant content off of West’s page, then this may indeed be a pointless exercise here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.187.171 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The policies have been enumerated. For you to just keep asking us to repeat them is not good faith. You seem to be fixated on the notion that because it is in a reliable source, it must be included. Thousands of sources reported that Justin Bieber got a sports car for his last birthday, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Further, when a source makes a characterization of a living person, we have to take care to be NPOV. For example, say a single source said "John Doe has a pattern of drinking too much", we'd need to be careful. First of all, what "too much" is will be a matter of opinion. Then if they are a lone source, we have to ask why in all fairness. Similarly, we have to be careful of single or minority sources that are too complimentary. I'm sure I could find sources documenting people saying good things about West. That doesn't mean they belong here. You seem to like numbers as evidence.........how many different, experienced editors have removed that (or related) material during the time you've been refusing to read the policies recommended to you? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite your insistence that I have not, I have read and earnestly considered each and every policy that you have suggested, including NPOV. Not only that, I have provided a reasonable argument for why I believe each does not apply. In addition, I have also attempted to follow the policies enumerated above. However, you might consider these policies as well: “Be polite and welcoming of new users, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks.” As this has indeed become pointless, this should progress to another level of dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.187.171 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• You are quoting a guideline, not a policy. So please don't imply that I am vioolating the policy. The guideline also allows for a common sense exception. When yet another IP editor comes in, starting to edit war with a number of different, experienced editors, telling them things that are in conflict with policy (not guidelines), then I submit that after a couple of exchanges, the exception applies. Regardless, spending your time complaining that your feelings are getting hurt won't further your cause. Now you see an uninvolved admin has come in (below this response) and opined that we are within policy. Ever read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• You can try your luck at WP:BLPN. (You could also try signing your messages.) Chances are the editors there will agree with the editors here, since the consensus on this talk page, as far as I can tell from a quick read, is in line with policy and guideline. Even if a couple of papers report on some habit doesn't mean it's of encyclopedic value--but the arguments about the news cycle etc. have already been laid out here and rehashed and they don't seem to carry much weight with you. I wonder if politicians' articles shouldn't be limited to what can be sourced with books, but that's another matter altogether. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)