Talk:Jim Webb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Jim Webb is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Older comments

This article should really mention Mr. Webb's book, "Fields of Fire."

Mr Webb is not a classmate of Senator McCain; Webb was class of '68, McCain was class of '58. Timberg's book is more accurately described as being about the Naval Academy graduates who attained fame/importance/notoriety during the Reagan Administration.

[edit] 2006 Campaign Photo

Permission to include this photo was given by Webb's campaign webmaster with follow-on email to his press secretary. Thought it would be good to see what the man looks like in 2006.

[edit] NPOV rewrite needed

This article is ug-lee. Parts of it read like Webb's PR people wrote it -- "best-selling author", "approached his task with the intensity of ...." The list of professions at the beginning is overwrought: for encyclopedic purposes, he's a former Navy Sec. who's written a book or two and is now running for Senate. Other side jobs may be listed in the body of the article (lit professor? what school? how long? tenured, or just one class?). Citations for some claims may be necessary (e.g. "most-decorated"). --Dhartung | Talk 12:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It does need work. --Ajdz 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the less-notable stuff from the lead, removed "most highly decorated", and toned down the book-blurb stuff. Everything else looks pretty straightforwardly factual, so I took the liberty of removing the NPOV tag. Hornblende 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navy Cross

Does the text of the Navy Cross citation belong in this article? If it's on another site it's reasonable to link to it, but the text and contents are themselves probably not encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 12:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because of its length, the Navy Cross citation would probably be best as an external link. --Ajdz 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is a link available to the full text of the citation, on-line, and (I'd argue) what Webb has done with the rest of his life is much more important than the award. Even summarizing it to three or so sentences seems, to me, to give it too much importance. John Broughton 17:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait (Which Picture To Use?)

Not that I don't like it, but is rather R.F.K.-ish, isn't it? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.65 (talk • contribs).

  • I think the official picture from his campaign is more of a top-photo thing, whereas the portrait is something for lower in the article.Neal2028 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I think the campaign photo is of poor quality. The portrait is a more flattering image. evrik 11:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We seem to have a problem here. We have the 2006 campaign photo, the painted picture of Webb, and the official photo from the 1980's. We ought to just pick one, and leave it at that.
That being said, I'm for the 2006 campaign photo, as I think it's pretty good, and is of course recent. Neal2028 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the portrait better than the campaign photo. --evrik 06:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "James H." vs. "Jim"

Since he now goes by "Jim" (see his website), but he was formerly referred to as "James H. Webb" in most media, should the article be titled "James H. Webb" or "Jim Webb." --Craverguy 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On that matter, shouldn't "Jim Webb" direct here? The sub-stub on an obscure Canadian politician doesn't seem like it deserves priority. "George Allen" goes straight to the disambiguation page, so maybe "Jim Webb" should do so too, if there isn't consensus on one Webb being most notable. --BDD 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV requires cartoon controversy

As long as the George Allen article has sections on criticisms of him and his macaca gaffe, this article should also have criticisms of Webb as well and the supposedly anti-semetic cartoon incident. Right or wrong, we can't have one candidate have a section of criticisms and controversies, and no such section for the other guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plunge (talk • contribs) .

Hello? This situation is still the case. I'm a supporter of Webb, but there's just no way that Allen's bio can have a long, terribly written discussion of every last twist and turn of his controversy, and this page has virtually nothing at all. That's ridiculous. Plunge 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There may be a misunderstanding about wikipedia processes, here. No editor is responsible for what this page may be missing. If YOU think something is missing, and no one else seems interested in adding it, then either (a) it's apparently not newsworthy or (b) lacks adequate sources or (c) you should add it yourself if you want to see it here.
You might also note that there are presumably plenty of anti-Webb editors out there; no one is blocking them from adding appropriate information to this article.
And, if in fact text on this matter, adequately sourced, HAS been added but was deleted by others, please note that here; removing valid information is certainly something that should concern everyone. John Broughton | Talk 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm talking about. A controversy section has been repeatedly created and deleted. So obviously we need to have a talk about it before more pointless additions and revert wars continue. Plunge 22:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What adequately sourced text was added and then removed? Please bring to talk page. Jasper23 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements

This isn't a cmapign website. The list of endorsements seems highly POV. If we have it then NPOV requires that we should list all those who have opposed him by endorsing another candidate. The better solution would be to just delete the list. -Will Beback 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same thing. Not only does it seem POV, it is not very attractive or encyclopedic. Furthemore, for it to be NPOV, we must also add a list of people who do not endorse him, which would be quite a task. I agree with removing it. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. It can always be re-added if there is significant disagreement that should come about. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] political affiliation

The intro flatly says "A Democrat, ...", which is clearly true now, but from the perspective of a whole-life biography leaves out some information. Presumably he used to be a Republican, since he served as a secretary under Reagan; are there any details about when he switched affiliations that could be added? At worst, we could say something vague, but it seems like useful information to mention that he was a Republican at one point and is now a Democrat. --Delirium 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, for what it's worth. If he has said that he was previously a Republican, perhaps that should be noted and cited, otherwise I think it's just an assumption. Asacan 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tangential to bio

I nominate the following graf for deletion as it is flab that adds nothing to our knowledge of Webb.

Other distinguished members of Webb's Naval Academy Class of 1968 include the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Michael W. Hagee. Another classmate, retired Admiral Jay L. Johnson, also served as Chief of Naval Operations--the U.S. Navy's senior ranking officer.

Skywriter 00:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage or marriages

Someone recently changed mention of Webb's children from being from a previous marriage to being from previous marriages. I'm having a little trouble finding a bio which details his marriages and/or children. Does anyone have a good source? If so, the related details should probably be included in the article. --StuffOfInterest 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I added stuff today about marriages after I did some lexus nexus research.

[edit] Controversy over Webb's racial epithets

The following was deleted from the article:

After weeks of Webb's surrogates accusing his opponent of being a racist, Webb was forced to respond to charges that he had committed hate crimes in the past. The Washington Post reported that Webb and several other servicemen would drive into the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, call black people n*****s, point fake shotguns at them and then drive off laughing. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092702062.html

Here is what was added to the article this morning. It has, so far only been reported by the Washington Post. If this is included in the article it needs a npov rewrite, with grammar and whatnot taken care of. I added (below) to the same article. It probably needs cleanup too. I dont have the time right now.

Mr. Webb has since denied the affair, asserting that " it's not true. It's not even close to being true," Webb was quoted as saying: "In 1963, you couldn't go to Watts and do that kind of thing. You'd get killed. So of course I didn't do it. I would never do that. I would never want to do that.

Thanks Jasper23 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Among other things, an ROTC cadet is not a serviceman. I was about to remove the text as being highly POV and non-representative of the source, so I support what was done here. Examples of POV: the Washington Post article doesn't mention "surrogates"; it's unclear that driving around a neighborhood, yelling epithets, qualifies as "hate crimes" - a description should suffice, letting the reader evaluate alleged actions.
When this is worded as NPOV, it's welcome to go into the article. Feel free to post proposed wording here, FIRST. John Broughton | Talk 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that the anon who put this in the article, 216.12.42.179 (talk • contribs • logs), has a history of highly POV edits. The WHOIS info is rather interesting. I guess legal firms have a lot of time for Wikipedia editing these days. --StuffOfInterest 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are the racial epitiets splashed all over George Allens page and alleged incidents but some how this is inappropriate on Webb's page and considered vandalism? 20:39, 28 September 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doug rosenberg (talk • contribs).
It's actually not that helpful to get into an argument here about what editors of another article have and have not allowed. (For what it's worth, what has gone into George Allen and not been removed is (a) well-sourced and (b) written in neutral language, in my opinion.) If you think that the editors there aren't following wikipedia policy, then discuss it there. The issue here is whether what YOU want to put into THIS article follows wikipedia policy; let's keep the discussion focused on that, please. John Broughton | Talk 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put something in the article; maybe we can get to editing that, rather than deleting it entirely. John Broughton | Talk 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this subject belongs in Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, and I've added a section to that article. Please take the conversation to that page. (My apologies for not noting this earlier.) I'm going to trim back the campaign section in this article; it's really supposed to be a brief summary of the campaign article, not to take on a life of its own. John Broughton | Talk 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual Virginia Senatorial Election

The 2006 General Election for Virginia senatorial Candidates occured on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 and not November 6, 2006 as stated. Due to the closeness of the tallied votes, Senator Allen did not concede until November 10, 2006. The official election results are not declared until the end of November by the Virginia State Board of Elections.

[edit] Complaints by Navy women

I added a comment about women complaining and it was immediately deleted! Despite the fact that these kind of allegations and even allegations by dead people are splashed all over Allen's page. I am going to add a dispute of neutral point of view unless someone can convince me that why my edit was deleted concerning the Navy women. Jasper23 said he was moving it to the discussion for cleanup but I do not see that he did that. (Doug rosenberg 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)).

OK, it Looks like I was mistaken because it is still in there so I take the above comment back.(Doug rosenberg 20:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)).

Yeah, my wireless network is fading in and out. Didnt mean to say one thing and do another. Jasper23 23:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I took it out again. Let's talk.
Wikipedia have absolutely strict standards about putting negative information into an article about a living person: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. Even if you put The Washington Post reported .... ", that isn't enough - there MUST be a link for Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Second, any text you add MUST be supported by the article that is cited. For example, the text in the wikipeida article CANNOT say "Webb did X", if the article says "Several women said that Webb did X". You have to get this right. If you don't, some editors will fix the text (after following the link), and some will just delete it and make you do it again, hopefully better. DON'T PUT TEXT IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE THAT ISN'T SUPPORTED BY WHAT YOU'RE CITING.
I hope that clarifies matters. John Broughton | Talk 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
How about this;
Hostile environment at Women Naval Academy controversy
- The Washington Post reports on 09/27/06 "Webb Denies Ever Using Word as Epithet" that several former women midshipman complained that Webb created a hostile environment for women at the naval academy. They cited an article Webb wrote in 1979.
--Doug rosenberg 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitely better. I'll put a version of that into the article; feel free to edit it. Remember that the goal is to present facts, and let the reader follow the link if he/she wants more details. John Broughton | Talk 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this subject belongs in Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, and it already has what seemed (brief look) to be a good section there. Please review what is in THAT article, and if it is not satisfactory, make changes there. (My apologies for not noting this earlier.)
I'm going to trim back the campaign section in this article; it's really supposed to be a brief summary of the campaign article, not to take on a life of its own. John Broughton | Talk 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand this point of view and wouldnt disagree except the descrepency betwenn the George Allen Page and Jim Webb page. I look at the George Allen page, the whole page consists of controversey associated with the 2006 election campaign. Why don't you remove the Allen controversies to the campaign page?--Doug rosenberg 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, that's a matter for posting to the Talk page of the George Allen article, which you've done. And another editor, by the name of Remember, seems to be making the same suggestion, on that page. John Broughton | Talk 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towel-heads

How is stating that vandalism? It is sourced, verifiable, and topical to his "Movies" section. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 21:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No opposition at lead in

The reason I removed opposition is because there isn't enough room for all candidates on the ballot, and ballots are more verifiable than polls are. There is plenty of information about opposition on the actual election page. These are pages about people, not just the election. There are more than two candidates, and by ignoring the others it shows bias. I know it seems wierd, but there are other people on the ballot who are always capable of swaying close elections like these. For neutralities sake, I have removed them. Other candidate's pages reflect similar changes. 16:02, 25 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StayinAnon (talk • contribs).

Why not just add Gail Parker? --198.185.18.207 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
198 - Gail Parker belongs in the section on the campaign, not at the top. And she is there. Why should a minor party candidate be mentioned TWICE in an article about another candidate?
StayinAnon - you said: Other candidate's pages reflect similar changes. Looking at your user contributions, you've been doing this change to the the Webb article and four other articles: Bob Corker, Harold Ford, Jr., Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, starting today. Of these, Corker and Ford are running against each other; I'm not going to argue about them. For the three cases of challengers to incumbents, however, I believe it's absurd to mention at the top of an article that the person is running for a Senate seat, yet not mention the name of the incumbent who holds that seat and is running for reelection.
Is it POV if other candidates in the race aren't mentioned at the top of an article about a challenger? NO. If those other candidates have articles of their own, then the intro paragraphs of those articles also should include the name of the incumbent they are running against, and need not mention the major party nominee in the race. That way parallelism (NPOV) is maintained.
Consider: If an article began "X is trying to beat the world record held by Y", would it that be POV unless all the other people trying to beat that world record were also listed at the beginning of the article? Obviously not. If Webb says something negative about Allen, is that POV unless the Green party candidate also is quoted as saying something negative about Allen? Obviously not.
I've counted at least four editors, myself included, who object to your deleting the name of incumbents from the top of articles about their challengers. Unless you get support from other editors for what you're doing, you should stop. If you can't persuade others to support your efforts, you should turn your energies elsewhere (the wikipedia project certainly needs a LOT more work). John Broughton | Talk 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
These pages are about people and not just races. Neutrality isn't served to the minority parties if you refuse to include them with other candidates. By saying that there is no opposition based on polls is absurd. Any vote for someone else against another opponent is opposition. My arguement is that if you don't add all of the candidates then don't add any at all. There is plenty of information there in the actual election pages. User:StayinAnon | Talk 16:53, October 25 2006 (UTC)
Minority parties ARE included, just not at the top. The top of the article is deliberately limited to the most important and relevant information that the reader needs.
I haven't used the words "polls" anywhere in my comments; I don't know what you're referring to.
My arguement is that if you don't add all of the candidates then don't add any at all. No, your argument is that if the name of the incumbent is listed in the top paragraph, the names of all the other candidates running against the incumbent should be listed in the top paragraph. No one has objected to having the names of all candidates in the campaign section of the article, nor having all the names of the candidates in campaign/election articles. And, quite frankly, that's pretty generous, considering that most minor party candidates (I'm NOT talking about Gail Parker necessarily) get a very small percentage of the votes and make no difference whatsoever in elections.
What you seem to be missing is that wikipedia articles should be consistent, and what is consistently true of articles about candidates is that they list the name of the incumbent in the top paragraph of their article, and NOT the names of other candidates running against that incumbent (in the TOP paragraph). What in particular gives you a sense that you've stumbled across a great injustice in (hundreds of) wikipedia articles, an injustice not noticed by the thousands of editors who have edited them, and now it's time for you to personally fix this?
There is plenty of information there in the actual election pages. It's an interesting argument that because information appears in one place, it shouldn't appear in another place. I don't think you'll get many people to agree. John Broughton | Talk 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits by KiffTC

I have reverted these edits (and several that followed, which were worked with the changes made, I believe) because while a few of the changes cite sources that comply with WP:V and WP:RS, many if not most do not. I'm not going to pick through what is good and what is not; I don't really think there is that much missing from this article, so I've reverted the entire set of changes. I invite KiffTC to repost what is acceptable (which may not be much).

To be specific: WP:V states that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Unfortunately, simply providing a Lexis-Nexis URL, done at least three times, is not consistent with that policy. Cites must include the author, publication date, publication, etc., in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources, or, failing that, there must a link that any reader can follow to verify the posted information. A full citation or link is also needed for WP:RS. (Clicking on the provided URL brings up a page requiring a user-id and password; Lexis-Nexis is a paid subscription service).

Further, links like these: [1], </ref fail WP:RS. Citing an opinion piece in a student newspaper is also a violation of WP:RS, as well as WP:BLP. John Broughton | Talk 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is KiffTC, for some reason wikipedia won't let me login... i resourced that article before, it was also in the wash post. As for the lexis nexis, they are just old washington post articles... how exactly am i supposed to source something if no matter where i look you have to pay for it(b/c the article is so old). As for the rightwingnews one, it was the only site with uploaded photos of the book, i don't see how it's invalid, theres no commentary, just the image. 16:10, 26 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GJunior (talk • contribs).
If you find an article in Lexis-Nexis, you use can follow WP:CITE, as I stated above. Don't include a URL, obviously; and the publisher is the Washington Post, not Lexis-Nexis. That way, at minimum someone can go to the library and look up the article. (It's not true that wikipedia references must have an active link; that's a common misunderstanding.)
You're correct that the source is less relevant when you're citing an image. Even there, however, one point of WP:RS is the TRUSTWORTHINESS of a source. If/when you repost this, I'll take a closer look, but I do suggest you (re)read WP:RS first. (I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that using an opinion piece in a student newspaper as a source is a mistake.)
May I suggest that you start SMALL - pick ONE thing that you think is wrong with the article, and go ahead and change the article accordingly. You'll then get some pretty instant feedback about it, probably (including, if no reversion, an implicit message that it's okay), and you can learn from that and then consider doing another change. By contrast, starting off by doing a bunch of edits to a very active article (as is this one), when one is a new editor, is generally not the best approach. John Broughton | Talk 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, since you posted most of the stuff again, as GJunior, and I reverted it, let me give you some further feedback:
  • Charges of Antisemitism - this is a primary campaign issue, not an issue in the current general election campaign. So it belongs in the article on the campaign - if this episode isn't described there already, feel free to add it. Small issues arising during the campaign (particularly the primary) don't belong in the Webb article, even in the campaign section. And what you wrote gives undue weignt to a minor matter; that's a violation of WP:NPOV.
  • Statements on Affirmitive Action. If this is a campaign controversy, then you need to add a source more current than single one you give, a WSJ article from 2000 (that cite is acceptable, and should remain in). You've failed to demonstrate that this is a campaign controversy in 2006. Personally, I'd classify this as a "political position" (there really should be a "Political positions" section in the article) rather than a campaign issue. And I believe that Webb has commented on it; your failure to include his comments is probably another WP:NPOV violation.
  • Statements on Middle Easterners - I encourage you to look at the edits by Awikinewbie, which revised your text to provide a larger, more balanced context. The text, as is, probably is a violation of WP:NPOV because it makes no attempt to provide a balance, neutral set of facts. In general, the best way to get negative informaiton into an article is to include a rebuttal by a person to any charges, not simply state the charges and leave the reader to infer that the person did not respond, or that there is no other side to the issue.
  • Passages on Pedophilia - okay, this is simply absurd: you added to the article the description of a scene in a NOVEL written by Webb?! You did that because it illustrates - well, what exactly? And then you use three cites to rightwingnews.com as the ONLY source? [Not that I'm suggesting you actually quote the novel, but IF it were relevant - it's NOT - that would be the way to cover the topic.] And then you inserted text that said Webb has made no statements regarding this passage!! Is there some reason you think an author should comment on every and all possibly controversial scenes in his/her NOVEL?
I think that about covers what you just added to the article and I removed. If I've missed something, please let me know. John Broughton | Talk 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 26th Press Release by Allen (novel controversy)

As many pages about political issues and politicians, this is a tenancy sometimes to insert our own views into the editing process. While the books have been out there for some time, the fact that Allen issued a neat release with all of the controversial aspects of Webb's writings is important. Even if you can't agree about whether or not the content of the excerpts is important or not, it at least deserves to be mentioned along side other controversies--please note a similar mentioning on Allen's page. Please allow the facts to be published and let people make up their own mind: Is Allen desperate to put out this press release at this late time in the campaign? Does Webb really have a problem with women?Joshfriel 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The basic facts should stay. But giving something (in this case a press release) undue weight is a violation of WP:NPOV; a link to the press release is sufficient for those readers who want details. Plus, a press release is NOT a controversy; it's only a "controversy" if it is picked up in newspapers and replied to by Webb and so on. Finally, there is a CAMPAIGN article to discuss the campaign (notice the "main article" tag at the beginning of the section); that is where DETAILS are supposed to go. The campaign section in the Webb article is supposed to be a high-level summary. John Broughton | Talk 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Broughton, the book controversy is included under a list of other controversies and deserves as much weight as the rest. I know this is asking the impossible, but can we please- PLEASE- try and stick with the facts and not editorialize one way or another? RBPierce 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If this came out about his opponent George Allen (U.S. politician), it would make up a much larger fraction of the article than it does here - you know it. I call POV. If the necessary changes aren't made I'll move for a tag. Haizum 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard to call POV on an "IF" and a hypothetical. --198.185.18.207 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the cite, above, to WP:NPOV. Undue weight IS a violation of that policy. My I suggest you read it?
When there is something more out there than a press release (bloggers don't count - see WP:RS), then feel free to add that citation and text from it. And as for the statement that the book controversy is included under a list of other controversies and deserves as much weight as the rest, if you can point me to a wikipedia policy that says "all controversies deserve equal weight", I certainly will accede to changing this from two sentences to a whole bunch more text. Otherwise, please don't cite policies that you've made up on own. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You're pretty much an apologist for all those editors (biased ones) that won't give this news equal weight simply because they don't have to - because it's not policy. That's probably why co-founder Larry Sanger is starting Citizendium, actually, it's exactly why. Haizum 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Broughton, might I suggest YOU read the WP:NPOV? "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each... Let the facts speak for themselves" The prominence of this controversy is on par with the others... and thus equal weight is deserved. Please don't violate WP:NPOV with your censorship. If you are unable to impartially observe and edit this article, please consider excusing yourself. If not, let's stick to the facts and to trying to tamp down on this vandalism.
On the point of vandalism, I have moved for a semi-page protection lock to be placed on this article to prevent some of this crap. RBPierce 15:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I second the proposal for semi-page protection.
Haizum - regarding your comment that I am pretty much an apologist for "biased" editors, I suggest you (re)read WP:CIVIL. On the larger point, if you don't believe in following wikipedia policies, then you might want to redirect your efforts to Citizendium or a blog. If you chose to edit wikipedia articles, you should follow wikipedia policies.
RBPierce - regarding for your statement that The prominence of this controversy is on par with the others, that's not what my review of google news story shows. The matter hasn't gotten any play in newspapers, for example. Thus I believe that fairly represent, in WP:NPOV, means covering the basic facts, and letting the reader follow the links. I am certainly not in favor of "censoring" the story; I've never tried to delete the Drudge Report cite, for example.
Finally, no one seems to be responding to one point I've made above, so I'll try again: the campaign section in this article is supposed to be relatively BRIEF; that's why there is a separate campaign article - for the details. Most of what is being fought over here really should be posted (for all I know, IS posted - I've not even looked) at Virginia United States Senate election, 2006. May I strongly recommend that those who think this matter is understated in this article take the discussion to the campaign article instead? Belatedly added: 16:26, 27 October 2006 John Broughton
I am assuming the above comment is by Broughton (please try and sign contributions). I agree that the article should be brief, but a quick synopsis of an ongoing campaign is called for. I do not feel that the citation of controversies overwhelms the Webb focus, and I would venture to say neither do you, given your contributions on this and the Allen wiki. Yes, I read your contributions and your user talk page, from which it is clear that you are opposed to Allen. I can also see that you are making a good faith attempt in this and the Allen wiki to be impartial, but I am beginning to question whether that is possible (and please understand, I am not trying to attack you or your integrity. There are some issues for all of us about which we have trouble maintaining objectivity). Our job as wikipedians, especially as regards to current events, is neither to white wash nor to smear the characters involved. Just the facts should be our credo, yes? RBPierce 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. I'm saying the article is inadequate, especially within the context of other articles, and you're saying no change needs to be made on said article simply because policy does not require it - that's acting as an enabler for POV, there's no other way to say it. So, if you enjoy slinging policy articles, please adhere to WP:AGF when I say you're an enabler; I'm trying to make Wikipedia better. Haizum 19:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Request for community concensus: I think that, for now, the controversy section is well enough detailed and fairly impartial. Can we agree to maintain it until any further information comes out? RBPierce 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Support: Looking at the 18:23, 27 October 2006 RBPierce version of the article, I think it does a good job of describing the situation, with appropriate weight. John Broughton | Talk 19:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If the Allen campaign does state that they issued the press release, then "reportedly" should come out of the first sentence, and the third sentence probably should be replaced by something else. (The link is actually pretty good, could be mined for something else.) John Broughton | Talk 19:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the comment :) RBPierce 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Reject: Further information has already come out, such as, "Boy's Penis in Father's Mouth 'Not a Sexual Act,' Webb Tells Radio Host" as featured on The Drudge Report[2]. Haizum 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Support: The current version is well-formated and balanced. While original research can't be included, go look a the passages for yourself at Amazon. Go to Lost Soldiers, do a search of the book and read the passages yourself. The boy's penis incident may not be sexual, but is sure is bizarre. I think Webb quote from this [3] "Its not a sexual act. I actually saw this happen in a slum in Bangkok when I was there as a journalist." should be included as a brief rebuttal to the pedophilia claims.Joshfriel 02:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Support: However, should this be moved down in the article. This is the only article that I have seen with a controversy section right in the middle, it's usually near the end. Jasper23 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason the controversy section is "right in the middle" is because for the most part, they apply directly to his 2006 candidacy-therefore they are within that sectionJoshfriel 11:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for removing the controversy regarding unverified and inferential slurs on the part of James Webb. I didn't want to outright delete the comment and therefore attached the qualifier in the hopes that someone higher up the food chain would take notice and make a judgement. Apologies if this broke any rules. Rena 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webb a plagiarist?

Some have recently examined Webb's novels and seem to think he lifted unique phrases and passages without attribution. See this article for more information, including Larry Sabato stating, "There are some passages that were lifted, that’s just obvious." And then this update has Robert Harris (a leading plagiarism analyst) stating, "A review of the excerpts clearly reveals that The Emperor's General contains a number of instances of significant plagiarism from Japan's Imperial Conspiracy." How long should we wait to add a small note about this? --198.185.18.207 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is pretty weak, so far. First, the two links you provide (thanks) are to a National Review (very partisan) article where the author (not an expert in plagarism) provides links and makes assertions of plagarism; the second is a blog entry that quotes a few sentences of an expert; what the full opinion is, is unknown.
More important is the context. Webb is a novelist; the source he "plagarized" is a popular history. If you read the article, it seems clear that Webb has used a lot of the facts in the passages in his novel. What he hasn't done (to my eye, at least) is simply copy paragraphs and change a word or two. When someone says "plagarism", I expect copy/paste, and I didn't see that.
I don't see much problem is a novelist taking facts from a historial account of events, and I don't think novelists are expected to provide attributions. If one wants to fault Webb for failing to give credit, or failing to suggest to readers where they might find more information, well - that's not plagarism. John Broughton | Talk 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Webb's father not James E. Webb of Nasa?

James Webb is listed here and on his home site as the son of James Webb, combat pilot who was involved in the Missile program and is buried in Arlington National Cemetary. James E. Webb, with whom Webb Sr. must have been almost exactly contemporaneous, was another Washington administrator who was involved in the Space program and who also is buried in Arlington National Cemetary.

There doesn't seem to be enough information about the senator's father to establish that there were two prominent people in Washington at the same time with the same name, and he was not just one person.

One possible reason for deliberate obfuscation would be that James E. Webb was a prominent Democrat all his life, whereas the senator was associated with the Republicans until changing his party.

I just wonder if it should be made clear that James H. Webb Jr is not the son of James E Webb, Nasa administrator.

[edit] Odd placement

Isn't the placement of the election results odd in the lede? They don't really fit exactly where they are. --198.185.18.207 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

fixed. --Rajah 15:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --198.185.18.207 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article or section contains information about a candidate in an upcoming or ongoing election.

please add. and also :current event. thx

[edit] Allen is still currently serving as Senator

While I am personally overjoyed at the tentative results from Tuesday's election, we must remain objective and report the facts as they are, not as they will be. Allen's term is not up until Jan. 3rd, 2007, when then, and only then will he cease to be the incumbent Senator. Stealthound 09:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Military Career

A. "During his time as Assistant Secretary, Webb was largely responsible for the reorganization of the entire Marine Corps. Webb was distraught at the disarray the Marines had fallen into post-Vietnam; the Oliver North scandal" This makes no sense. First, I'm not sure if it's true. Why would the Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs be responsible for reorganizing the Marine Corps? I've reworded it to "maintained a significant interest"

I've no objection to stronger wording if there's a reference to back it up.

Second, he presumably got involved (if he got involved) with Marine Corps reorganization during his time as Ass't Secretary, not simply in the last few months he held the position. Given that the Oliver North scandal came to a peak in North's testimony before Congress in '87 (and was first disclosed in late 86), there's no way Webb would have been aware of it.

Third, we'd need citations for Webb being unhappy about North. Given Webb's stated political views at the time, it's entirely possible he supported backing the Contras. (No, I'm not asserting he did, I'm simply saying we need evidence to back the suggestion that Webb was unhappy with North).

I've done something I don't have a problem with from a neutral POV -- I've cited the Lonetree espionage scandal and Oliver North's involvement in Iran-Contra as elements happening shortly before he took office, to give a picture of the environment he had to deal with.

Fourth, Webb was distraught? That makes him sound like a stereotypical Victorian spinster. Changed to 'gravely concerned'

B. "Webb hired Al Gray as commandant of the Marine Corps with the hope that Gray could reshape the Corps into the elite unit it once was."

Nope.

You do not "hire" a commandant of the Marine Corps. You appoint one. More accurately the President appoints one; I've no problem saying Webb was influential in the appointment; if someone wants stronger language that's fine, but please no civilian CEO-style "hiring" language. And keep in mind this is a presidential appointment.

C. "It is believed by many that Reagan regretted [3] Webb's resignation and that the dispute was between Reagan's Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci and Webb."

No way, at least not on the evidence presented. Moreover, anyone who's studied Reagan knows the extreme unlikelihood of his regretting someone's resignation.

The [3] links to a letter from Reagan accepting Webb's resignation. It's a remarkably brief, anodyne letter that makes no mention of the 600-ship controversy.

I think Webb's a great guy and a fine man, but there's no evidence to suggest Reagan regretted the resignation.

D. Webb was a writer. No. Author is more accurate. A writer could be someone who works for a travel magazine; Webb was an author, and, according to Webb's homepage, a filmmaker. (http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/nytimes/iraqwarugly.htm)

[edit] Senatorial box consistency

I note that Webb's sneator box has been removed on the grounds that he hasn't taken office yet. Fair enough, if that's the protocol. But there needs to be consistency. The box still appears in articles on other members-elect of the forthcoming US Congress. Fishhead64 07:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion should probably take place on those articles in question. Webb's article just drew much more scrutiny being how close (actually, pivotal) the race was. Perhaps there needs to be a "Senator elect" info box which can easily be converted to a regular Senator box after the next congress is seated? --StuffOfInterest 12:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Point of View Problems

Webb's opinion on problems within the Marine Corps ("drug use," etc.) is either severly lacking a citation (or two) or simply complete point of view and should therefore be deleted.

Also, under Trivia, the article states that Webb "wore his son's combat boots" every day of the Senate race (no citation). Earlier in the article, it says that Webb's son is currently serving in the military and actively deployed (no citation). What is his son wearing for shoes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.220.94 (talk • contribs).

You can't be serious. They aren't magic boots. Combat boots are easy enough to come by and he's just wearing another pair. Gamaliel 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I had never heard that they were his sons combat boots till reading this article. A quick google search shows all the media sites (cnn, washingtonpost, the AP) say Webb wears combat boots, all the blogs say they're his sons. I think it came from one speech where he held up his sons combat boots to symbolize his son had just went to iraq (or something). So I'm going to take "son" of of the article in the context. If anyone finds a direct, reputable source that he WORE his SONS boots, feel free to change it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesBenjamin (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Term of Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)

According to the United States Senate Historian's Office, all senators who were elected November 7, 2006, have a term starting on January 3, 2007[4]. Also, pursuant to the 20th Amendment of the Constitution, "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." Just because the Congress did not convene on the 3rd, does not mean that senator's terms did not already begin. Byrdin2006 01:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster

Ulster is not northern ireland. Ulster encompasses 9 counties out of 32. NI is 6 and only came into existance in 1920s. Unionists do refer to it as Ulster but Webb has never indicated a particular politcal view on the partition of ireland so ascribing one to him is a POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.226.213 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Terse exchange with Bush"

The article contains the line "Webb was so angered by the exchange that he was reportedly tempted to "slug" the president", but none of the articles referenced for that sentence make mention of him being tempted to slug the president, or even anyone speculating that he was tempted to slug the President. This line should probably be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.91.203.226 (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] POV problems with Author/Articles section

The current version of the article in the As an author section had the following text:

On November 15, 2006, The Wall Street Journal published an article by Webb entitled "Class Struggle." Webb argued that the government must "confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization." He also stated that the "elites" ignore the average American and believe that "[c]ertain immigrant groups have the 'right genetics' and thus are natural entrants to the 'overclass,' while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes." Columnist Jim Glassman has insinuated that this comment was anti-Semitic ("The Class Struggle of Jim Webb").

I am removing this text for the reasons below:

  1. Note that Webb has authored quite a number of articles in various periodicals. [5] The current section only includes one article that has generated at least some amount of controversy, as shown with the citation.
  2. The comment about the article being viewed as anti-semitic is unbalanced (see WP:NPOV) — the view point disputing this interpretation is not represented. As such, I'm deleting it and leaving it here on the talk page, should it be deemed important enough to be included in the article, it can be re-added with a balanced POV. In such a case, it seems to be more appropriate for a "Controversies" or "Issues" section.

— ERcheck (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion of that one article should not be the whole "articles" section if there is to be one but including a controversial article does not seem to be a violation of NPOV. Including a criticism of the critical article also does not seem to be a violation of NPOV. I don't see how the lack of a criticism of the criticism (if someone finds one by all means add it) suddenly makes the inclusion of the criticism unbalanced. This article by Webb is an important summary of his views. Some people agree with his views and other people disagree. If a reader wants to make up his own mind he can read Webb's article and a criticism of it. DmitriTheSheep 22:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The section can be renamed Allegations of anti-Semitism and expanded to include Webb's calling his Jewish primary opponent an "anti-Christ." I'm surprised, given the weight given to "macaca" in the George Allen article, that Webb's anti-Semitism problems have escaped to the memory hole. I agree that the article has POV problems, but deleting legitimate criticism of Webb makes those problems worse. -- TedFrank 13:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did Jim Webb become a Democrat?

Jim Webb used to be a Republican who became a Democrat, but I don't see this very important event of when and why mentioned. I couldn't find anything specific about this via Google. Well, I assume that perhaps the change occurred when he announced he wanted to be a Democratic Senator, but the article is not clear. It does not specifically mention that he used to be Republican.Vudicarus 07:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/m/Talk%7EJim_Webb_1405.html"