Talk:Claude Allen

Untitled

"Mr. Allen may have been pursuing his personal goal of 'giving back to those you have received from'". Pure genius.

Pure POV. I deleted it. --DanKorn 01:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

HuffPost article

The first entry on the huffpost article seemed to be a misinterpretation. It brought up questions of genetics which the article does not. i rewrote and i think it is NPOV now, but if anyone has a beef with it let me know. should we even have the article cited? is the huffpost notable? --Geedubber 20:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a notable opinion; I think the whole thing should go. bd2412 T 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The HuffPost article is notable enough to have been on the Yahoo! News Search (which is different from the Yahoo! General search.) And the opinion piece did link blackness to criminality, which would not have been similarly been done to whiteness if Claude Allen were white. BlueGoose 21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The article did not link blackness to criminality.

• "Perhaps in Mr. Allen's warped ideology he associated petty criminality with "blackness" "

The author is talking about Mr. Allen's perception of blackness, not his own. He even refers to the opinion as "Warped." This article is not about a link to blackness to criminality. And I am pretty sure blackness does not refer to genetics either.--Geedubber 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Huffington Post article is entirely opinion and thus heavily POV. If there are no strenous objections I would initiate a delete of that section. I fear that embarking on a trend of quoting from op-eds would wreck havoc on the neutrality of this project. Xploita 16:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That would only leave reactions from Allen's supporters. I agree with you about the Huffington Post piece but if it's deleted then some replacement should be found. Phr 18:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the real question. Does the Huffington Post excerpt hold true informative value? If not, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. (See WP:Five pillars and WP:NPOV.) If this issue is not sufficiently answered, I am going to put a POV tag on the article, according to the Wikipedia policies on NPOV and partisan websites, and ultimately remove the section under question. Tschel 16:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it does have informative value. Not, of course, directly about Claude Allen himself, in the biographical sense, but in a larger sense. As you note, it's an opinion piece and therefore has a strong POV to itself and in fact it isn't about Allen personally, except as a launching point, but (in the other's opinion) Allen as an examplar. In other words, it's informative as to the reaction of certain groups to Allen's arrest, what Allen's political legacy may be, and the state of racial politics in the context of the two-party system in the U.S. today. It certainly true that the article was published, that it was about Allen in the larger context, and that it had a (debatedly, and perhaps transiently) notable impact in political discourse. Since "wiki is not paper" (WP:NOT), we can certainly spend a few bites on something lightly notable and transient, after all, the incidentals of history are invaluable to a historian. On the other hand, the trick is to put something in the article about something that in itself has a very high POV in a non-POV way. We do that all the time in Wikipedia, see Iraq war#War Rationale Post September 11, 2001 and Iraq war#Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we expunge POV from Wikipedia, "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias". In other words, the Wiki should reflect controversy and opinion without choosing sides, or appearing to do so. That is to say, we as editors cannot and should not have a biased presentation of what the Huffington Post had to say about Allen, but we can certainly present that it was said.

Now I also won't go so far as to say that that material is handled as best it can be; I can well understand arguments for editing it to improve it. I'm emphatically not trying to defend the status quo on the verbage as a whole; I think it could do with an unbiased makeover. --studerby 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts on representing a significant point of view; however, I believe it's fairly evident that this opinion piece on the Huffington Post is not significant enough to be put on this article alongide the reactions of The Washington Post, President Bush, and Allen's lawyer. Furthermore, I don't believe that it belongs in this article at all, for the following reasons:

First of all, it does not represent the opinion of a large group of people. The Iraq War criticisms you mentioned were legitimate because they did represent a large number of people. Notice parts on that page such as "the invasion of Iraq was seen by many as..." and "...massive protests on the war...", as well as the large number of statistics and opinion polls cited. There is no doubt that these criticisms should be mentioned on the Iraq War article, as they obviously represent a significant number of people. However, there is less certainty when you are dealing with the opinion of one blogger on one website on the Internet, as in this case.

Secondly, the author of this article has no significance in himself. If the opinion piece were written by a well-known news commentator or political figure, then the opinion might be considered significant only for that reason. However, the writer we are looking at is a somewhat remote screenwriter who has taken up blogging, and has no credentials to speak of. Thus, there is no reason why this opinion piece should be considered a notable viewpoint.

Third, even if we disregarded the notability issue, the reliability of the article is very questionable. Notice how the author abandons facts in favor of wild speculation. Consider several examples of the exquisite rhetoric that laces the entire piece: "Man, what I wouldn't give to be Claude Allen's shrink." "I mean, who in their right mind sees pubic hairs in a can of Coke?" "I've got it. Maybe black Republicans are like transvestites?" "Perhaps in Mr. Allen's warped ideology he associated petty criminality with 'blackness'..." When he is not tossing out childish (and sometimes off-color) insults, he is making ridiculous statements which he does not bother to back up with any tangible facts. This is obviously not a significant viewpoint with the right to be cited and represented, but rather, it is the rantings and ravings of an extremist blogger from some lonely corner in the far left of the Internet.

Lastly, giving undue attention to a particular viewpoint encroaches on the neutrality of the article itself. (See WP:What Wikipedia is not.) This opinion piece is by far the least significant of any of the viewpoints, and yet more words are spent on it than on any of the other reactions to Mr. Allen's arrest. Not only should this remote, extreme view be represented less, but it does not deserve any representation at all in this article. To improve the neutrality, relevance, and significance of this article, I propose that we remove the offending section altogether. Tschel 21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I don't think we're that far from disagreement on at least Wiki principles, let's see if we can get to agreement on a solution. But first, on your points:

First - I don't think "number of people" is the only determinor of significance in a controversy, I think most of us will agree that Galileo vs. the Catholic Church was a significant enough controversy, despite the numbers. Numbers can something like this significant, but there are other ways too.

Second - I agree with your opinion on Trey Ellis, at least his notability before that article. If we to rank the political punditocracy, I personally wouldn't even put him on the second team. But again, author notability can make something significant, but there are other ways too.

Third - The article is an opinion piece, of course it's littered with opinion, speculation, whatever. It could even be blatantly false and defamatory, which could potentially make it more notable, not less, and put a much greater responsibility on us Wikipedia editors to document the controversy without participating, enflaming it, and especially not propagating the false information. Much of what you deride about the article is why the thing is notable, because you're not the only one who had that opinion about it.

Lastly - Now this I mostly agree with, except of course about expunging it entirely. While Wiki isn't paper and we don't need to carefully meter out words to match the relative significance of the topics being covered, I agree that the particular expression and wording is pushing an unbalanced POV. As I said earlier above, "I think it could do with an unbiased makeover".

The thing is, whoever put the material in Wikipedia wasn't the only person to notice that piece. It was widely linked to and/or repeated in the political blogosphere and in many circles applauded or lambasted. For example, Michelle Malkin noted it, writing "Gleeful minority conservative-bashing and hysterical accusations of a "cover-up" are already underway." ("minority conservative-bashing" was a link to the HuffPost article, via a Yahoo News redirect that now no longer works). There were also multi-page essays devoted to it. Personally, I read the thing within a day or two of original posting, after following a link from a political website I read regularly (I don't read HuffPost regularly, BTW, about as frequently as I read Malkin or Free Republic). And I'll note that a Google of "Trey Ellis" "Claude Allen" gets several hundred hits and the first page of which splits pretty evenly 3 ways between left wing, right wing, and neither (woodenboats.com! A site devoted to discussing wooden boats! Geez, louis...)

I'll try to come up with a rewrite in the next day or so that answers at least some of your criticisms; I'll post it here and let you and the rest of the crew shoot at it. Not that it should take too long, but I'm out of Wiki time for today... --studerby 00:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the POV notice, since I was the one who put it up. The section now looks completely NPOV, and much more friendly, as it doesn't seem to be singling out the Huffington Post article any longer. --Tschel 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kleptomania

I agree that it's opinion, but he does have suggestions of Kleptomania:

1. Buying items and then immediately returning to the store for a refund. A craftier thief would wait to give the appearance of having tried the product or thinking it over. This practice is consistent with impulsive, opportunistic behavior; he may not have planned these expeditions, or may only have intended to go shopping before giving way to his compulsion. He may also suffer from compulsive shopping, buying too many items and then resorting to crime to cover up his mistakes ($5000 at Target is a good indication).

2. Working this scheme on purchases as small as $2.50.

3. Using a credit card, and the same credit card (apparently) over and over, with obvious traceability. Target just needs to group returns with the same credit card number to see this guy is over the top. Cash is the preferred medium for thieves.

1. Is it established that he was buying stuff and then trying to get refunds immediately? I imagined buying the item, taking it home, then bringing back the receipt some days later and taking another item off the shelf. (Yes, Target describes him placing purchases in his car and returning to the store, see link IIRC) --

I saw that description but there were supposedly around 25 separate incidents and I'm asking if they were ALL like that. Phr 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

2. The idea of this theft scheme isn't to get money, it's to get free stuff (i.e. you end up with the same amount of money you started with). So he picked the stuff that he actually needed at home, which presumably included some $2.50 items. Asking for refunds for that is just like everything else.

3. I see something more like megalomania than kleptomania: he simply felt like normal rules didn't apply to him, and he could take whatever he wanted, because he was Morality Man and rules and laws were only for other people. However, this kind of theorizing doesn't belong in the article. Phr 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, megalomania is another possible explanation. It's a complex interplay - he seems to focus a great deal politically on what he sees as compulsive behavior, but he may be compensating for his own attraction to this type of activity. Shoplifting and Kleptophilia have been described as compensation for repressed sexual urges (like everything in Freud), and you wouldn't find a much more repressed specimen than this one.

evil twin?

Looks like Claude has an evil twin named Floyd. You can see where this is going. Can someone work this into the article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/politics/14allen.html

Interesting defense. I guess he will also have to claim that his "evil twin" stole his credit cards, as the evidence against him is his credit card bill. --Asbl 15:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

yearbook photos of the twins can be found here. can we use those images? are they fair use? --Geedubber 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I already linked to that talkingpointsmemo post in the wiki article. as for posting the images on wikipedia ourselves, I think you would have to get authorization from the original source, if Josh Marshall is willing to give it up Bwithh 19:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

but Josh Marshall justed scanned a yearbook. he didn't create anything. it is just a reproduction. the copyright holder would be... well no one. or maybe the highschool. I think it is fairuse. --Geedubber 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Josh didnt scan a yearbook. A blog reader scanned a yearbook and send the picture in to Josh. I meant if Josh gave up the name of the reader. Bwithh 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps - someone owns the copyright - presuming it was a work for hire, the school does. It's of scant commercial value to the copyright owner, so we have an excellent fair use argument (provided it is cropped to the limit of what we really need, and not a high-res image). The evil twin angle is hilarious, but Claude has not yet claimed that his brother is the guilty party. We shall see... bd2412 T 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoever scanned the picture is irrelevant. If anyone owns the copyright, it is the school or the photographer, and since it was in the yearbook, almost certainly the school. Neither the scanner nor the poster enters into the fair use equation. Neither does Claude, since he is now a bona fide public figure. bd2412 T 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

i agree--Geedubber 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Claude Allen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301060911/http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200407/070804a.html to http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200407/070804a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310233523/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/allen-charges/?resultpage=3 to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/allen-charges/?resultpage=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904035246/http://www.gazette.net/article/20140902/NEWS/140909756/1124/gaithersburg-man-pleads-guilty-in-hatchet-murder-case%26template%3Dgazette to http://www.gazette.net/article/20140902/NEWS/140909756/1124/gaithersburg-man-pleads-guilty-in-hatchet-murder-case%26template%3Dgazette
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005164555/http://www.sandersonathletics.org/Class_of_2011%20HOF%20Induction%20Ceremony.pdf to http://www.sandersonathletics.org/Class_of_2011%20HOF%20Induction%20Ceremony.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20051115023645/http://www.prochoice.org/policy/get_informed_active/recent_positions/nominations/allen_oppose.html to http://www.prochoice.org/policy/get_informed_active/recent_positions/nominations/allen_oppose.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claude Allen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209164905/http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=68 to http://independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=68
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113011820/http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/allenresume.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/allenresume.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)