Talk:Diana Irey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 10 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
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 current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.


I personally support Irey, but this article does seem to be biased. Someone might want to fix it up? —69.133.205.8

Contents

[edit] Biographical Information

There needs to be more biographical information on Diana Irey, such as birth, birthplace, educations, etc. —70.137.193.252


Yes, birthdate, birthplace [??].

Hopiakuta 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pov?

"Commissioner Irey supports a balanced budget and cutting the pork in federal programs."

This looks like it was lifted right off her campaign web site. grazon 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That whole section is lifted from her website, it needs cleaned up. C56C 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Budget Deficit

At present, a subsection reads

She supports the reduction of taxes and the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would require Congress by law to balance the federal budget.

Now, plainly, one wants to have the article report whether she wants an Amendment which requires a balanced budget each and every fiscal year, or one that has an escape clause for emergencies. It should not be presumed that an Amendment would naturally have an escape clause — Adam Smith and other classical liberals wanted balanced budgets in times of war so that people would understand the full costs of war, and present opponents note that an escape clause would provide incentive for annual declarations of emergency in perpetuum. On the other hand, few voters would support an Amendment which required immediate spending cuts or tax hikes in the face of every emergency. —12.72.68.8 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “politicization”

I perfectly agree that Murtha (further) politicized matters with his remarks. However, “politicization” is a word that carries with a negative feel, and there are accurate descriptions of his actions that do not carry that same level of negativity. These articles should not be spinning the facts. — 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Politicization is an accurate term to apply to the actions of Congressman John Murtha, because the comments were political and used as a vehicle for his anti-Iraq War stance. Adding "controversial statements" does not address the context of why they were controversial. They were controversial due to the politics being played upon US troops. Also, what happened to Valerie Wilson was the result of politicization or politics. On the other hand, there can be positive and negative politicization, so it could be "negative politicization." On the other hand, the form of politicization would be a matter of perspective. For instance, Congressman Murtha defied the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments when he made those comments, which will become a legal issue if the Marines he accused of killling innocent civilians prior to the investigation are charged/convicted. Thus, arguments will be made that the jury pool is poisoned and they were not offered a "fair trial" as the result of negative politicization. Yet, Congressman Murtha might see it as "positive politicization" if it were to lead to the end of the Iraq War, but at the expense of "selling-out" the people that he accussed of killing innocent civilians. Still, this is not about Iraq War policy, but if there were American's consitutional rights being violated by a Congressman, which did happen and it was for "negative politicization." Also, there are many politicians that are taking a "negative politicization" stance on Iraq, but they may deem it to be "positive politicization." Still, I could go on about how the matter of perspective of politicization changes from different people and therefore the term "controversial statement" appears to be the best term to use to identify the statements that Congressman Murtha made.

[edit] “cutting pork”

Well, can we find a Congressman or Senator who says that he or she is against cutting pork? Will any of them admit that a programme that he or she sponsors is wasteful? Ideally, with or without the use of the term “pork”, this whole bit would be left out, for the same reason that we wouldn't bother reporting that she breathed or had a pulse. —12.72.68.8 17:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comma

My poor comma! *sniff* —12.72.68.8

[edit] The Reason that a Comma Would Be Better

Without the comma, the sentence

Commissioner Irey also garners a large support base for her Congressional campaign from U.S. soldiers and 18% of the people in the 12th Pennsylvania Congressional district are U.S. servicemen or servicewomen.

is harder to parse. Note that this

Commissioner Irey also garners a large support base for her Congressional campaign from U.S. soldiers and 18% of the people in the 12th Pennsylvania Congressional district.

would be a coherent sentence. A reader could be parsing things in just that way until he or she hits the “are”, at which point there is a need to back-up. There is relatively little danger that the comma would be read as a serial comma (“Tom, Dick, and Harry”) because there is no previous comma and a serial comma between items on a list of just two would always (or almost always) be ungrammatic. —12.72.69.147 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Diana Irey: birthdate, birthplace??

Hopiakuta 21:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confrontation with Chris Matthews

The cited source for this section is an anti-Irey political advocacy group. Hence, we must be concerned that the transcription is effectively truncated. A source for the rest of the program, and for any further remarks from Irey, Matthews, &c is much to be desired. —12.72.119.59 07:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1) "Political advocacy group" (LOL) has video, NOT the transcript. 2)The official transcript is linked in the same section.[1] C56C 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You neither linked to the transcript nor transcribed from the transcript. For example, the transcript reads thus
IREY: I think what he was doing was just trying to give you some information so you‘d know what kind of questions we‘ve been asking Mr. Murtha.
MATTHEWS: OK. I think I don‘t need—one thing is—you know, I love my brother, I don‘t need to be reminded he‘s the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania. Let‘s move on to the substance, grown-up stuff here.
IREY: OK.
Whereas what you provided reads thus
To which Irey said, "I think what he [Irey campaign manager] was doing was trying to give you some information to know what kind of questions we have been asking Murtha." In a stern voice Matthews concludes, "I love my brother. I don't need to be reminded he's the Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. in Pennsylvania."
There's not much use in your pretending that the latter is the former. —12.72.120.173 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I found and added another source. Aside from vindicating my concerns about the word “concluded” — Matthews concluded with a “Let's move on to the substantive, grown-up stuff.” — this other source doesn't add much besides a look at how a right-winger spun the exchange. (The first source shows us how a left-winger did.) We still don't have a clear report of all that was said. —12.72.119.59 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments here are TRASH. There is a link from a conservative website that has video of irey talking bad about John Murtha (who is NOT there to defend himself)[2], and yet you are "worried" about another website that is linked that has video Irey talking to Matthews about her campaign manager. These two wesbites clearly have their bias, but you seem only concered with one particular bias.
Because you are so of the mindset that anyone who isn't aligned with you must be a supporter of Irey, you are refusing to address what I am actually saying. I do not object to linking to left- or right-wing sites — I am concerned that our only sources for this material are spinners of one sort or another. —12.72.120.173 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a policy of WP:OWN, and you should be aware that this page is being watched. C56C 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You are citing an irrelevant policy. I did not create this article; I did not give it its general structure. My references to my past involvement are to establish that I have been trying to reduce the bias of this article from anyone who has attempted to give it bias.
Re-read it slowly, it does not speak about those that create articles. C56C 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
What you referenced was the “ownership” policy. You provided and provide and can provide nothing to indicate its relevance. I mentioned creation simply amongst those things associated with senses of “ownership” which did not obtain in this case. —12.72.118.239 02:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
And now your transparent attempts to spin this article have simply convinced those on the other side that there was no value of any sort to be found in your earlier edits. I'll look at this later to see whether I want to bother wandering into No Man's Land again. —12.72.120.173 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering this is the only article you edit... C56C 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You know better than that, since you've attacked at least two of the other articles that I edit, and you referenced those articles when (unsuccessfully) attempting to con the Administrators. —12.72.119.35 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bleh

I despair about this article. It seemed as if it was headed from being supportive to neutrality. Then left-winger POVers charged-in to spin it into an attack piece. Now it has been essentially reverted to a support piece. (Further, the reversions have been so wholesale, that Irey's birthdate was lost.) —12.72.120.173 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Its' not neutral if some sides are excluded. I guess your most recent edit forgot that.[3] C56C 22:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You have deliberately conflated my edits with those of other editors. The fact that you would try to falsify the record in this way shows that you have no respect for actual truth, only for persuasive appearances.
I don't agree with some of the changes that those other editors have made, but you have so poisoned this article that I have ever less hope of persuading them to recognizes the rules when you so plainly and deliberately cheat. —12.72.121.39 23:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I think that the Hardball interview had no controversy and it was a matter of someone's POV of it being controversial. It appeared to be a typical interview and I did not see anything wrong with it. Obviously, the person that posted the Hardball interview as a controversy was spinning the interviewing and that was not nuetral. Therefore, I think whoever put the harball piece in the Irey bio should be blocked, because that was vandalism.

[edit] Matthews Transcription

Here, for future reference,is the MSNBC transcription of that portion of the interview by Matthews which was editted into the alleged transcript placed at one point in this article:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We just heard from U.S. Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, perhaps the most vocal anti-war congressman in Washington.
We now go to his Republican challenger in the November elections, Diana Irey.
Diana, thank you for joining us.
What are you — I got a letter here. I told you about it before we came on. This is a press release apparently issued by your press secretary. It was sent to me, with a list of 10 questions I‘m supposed to ask Murtha.
Here‘s one. The first one. “How hard is it for you”—I‘m supposed to ask this to Murtha; your press guy told me to do this—“knowing that my brother Jim, the Republican nominee from the (INAUDIBLE) of Pennsylvania, just appeared two days ago with your opponent Diana Irey to cut the ribbon at her new volunteer headquarters in your hometown of Johnstown?” Did you know about this letter coming to me, telling me what to ask Murtha and talking about my brother?
DIANA IREY ®, PA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: These are press releases that have been formally sent out. And we put them all together to give you some questions for Mr. Murtha that he has not answered for...
MATTHEWS: Yes, well, what—tell me why you want me to ask him about my brother running for lieutenant governor. What relevance is that to anything here on this show?
IREY: I don‘t know it does have a relevance to what you‘re talking about at the moment. I just listened to your interview with Mr. Murtha. But these are just questions...
MATTHEWS: Well, do you think I should ask him—do you think I should put this question to Murtha or I should have put this question to Murtha?
IREY: Well…
MATTHEWS: What‘s the purpose of this question, to intimidate him or what?
IREY: No, I don‘t know what it was. But I‘ll tell you that you have a wonderful brother and he‘s going to do a good job leading Pennsylvania.
MATTHEWS: That could be the case, but let me ask you—do you think it was it right to have your flack bring this up as part of a setup for an interview with you?
IREY: I think what he was doing was just trying to give you some information so you‘d know what kind of questions we‘ve been asking Mr. Murtha.
MATTHEWS: OK. I think I don‘t need — one thing is — you know, I love my brother, I don‘t need to be reminded he‘s the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania. Let‘s move on to the substance, grown-up stuff here.
IREY: OK.

The funny thing is that not only have I seen this exchange spun anti-Irey (as by POVer C56C) but elsewhere I've seen it spun anti-Matthews. —12.72.120.173 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, had "someone" not removed the official transcript[4], and a link to video of the interview then putting a transcript of what was said that was also in the article wouldn't be necessary. C56C 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone removing the official transcript from the article, nor from anywhere else. But such a removal wouldn't warrant your having repeatedly placed a spun transcript in the article. I placed an unspun version here to allow any future debate easy reference to the actual material. —12.72.119.35 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link of you editing, and that section was gone.[5] I guess you missed that when you were busy being "neutral".
Again, what was removed was not the official transcript. What was removed was your spun version. I didn't restore your POVing when I made the edit that you reference because I'm not sure that the official transcript shows much controversy or confrontation. If you're going to spin controversy into existence here, then that would violate the “original research” policy. If there is controversy elsewhere then we need an appropriate link. —12.72.121.39 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Your edits don't conform to policy. Hence the semi-protection. C56C 22:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My edits didn't provoke the semi-protection. The protecting editor specifically noted that the anonymous editor in question was offering no debate. I have tried reasoning with you, even though it's as futile as giving medicine to the dead. —12.72.121.39 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as the blocking admin, oh yes they did. Now explore compromises and work on sourcing. And please do register an account. Just zis Guy you know? 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Great. Then you were simply lying when you claimed that I'd not engaged in debate. Further, I see that you weren't in fact functioning as an admin, as this tag can be applied and removed by non-administrators. You're simply yet another rouge editor. This article is going to be nothing but a football kicked between fans and foes of Irey. —12.72.118.239 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I see edits by a series of anons, and no attempt at compromise or consensus. Calling admins liars? Yes, that always works. Just zis Guy you know? 06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You asserted that I'd not engaged in debate; that was a bald lie. Certainly if some people can speak truth to real power then I can at least speak truth to a mere Wikipedia administrator. You didn't simply revert the edits that I had made; you chose to revert non-anonymous edits under the pretext of dealing with mine (which, again, you misrepresented as being made without debate). As to attempt at compromise and consensus: Had you tracked the over-all pattern of my edits, and my comments to various editors who'd been involved in this article and in the others which C56C and the Chico-based anonymous editor have in fact tried to make anti-X party and pro-Y party, then you'd see that I've tried to produce an un-spun article. But that's all purely hypothetical, insofar as it is plain that you want this article to have a bias. You are beneath both contempt and pity. —12.72.120.231 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: The Chico-based anonymous editor has been shown to have been Grazon. A visit to his user page exposes the general nature of his edits, the fact that he's been indefinitely blocked, &c. Ultimately, the truth will out, but it should have been obvious what was happening here. —75.42.174.181 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

I ahve semi-protected this article. This is to encourage the anonymous editor to register and engage in debate rather than making drive-by changes without discussion. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the semi-protection, because it appears that the Harball article is vandalism and its a double-standard to block people that are not vandalizing, as opposed to those that are vandalizing.
I'd be interested to know how you removed semi-protection, since protection & unprotection are administrator functions and you do not appear to be an administrator. Just zis Guy you know? 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think your arbitrary application of semi-protection is not valid and you are using such a tool for your own political motives. Wikipedia should be neutral and not someone's political propaganda tool. Now, the Harball piece is certainly someone trying to spin the interview and for political purposes. There are many edits that are not nuetral. Also, your application of the semi-protection does not follow the rules and procedures of Wikipedia, which I think you should read more clearly. My edits are "good faith edits" and in no way vandalism. You also provided no warnings prior to the semi-protection status, which was arbitrarly placed.

[edit] Political Views

It appears that creating sub-sections for political views allows for easier reading. Therefore, if someone wanted to read the stance of this particular politican then a person can click on the link to read about their stances. There other politicans from Democrat to Republican that have a political views section with sub-sections for better reading.

In terms of political views, someone put a statement on top that it was from Irey's campaign website. I do not think that had any importance and I removed it. The citations speak for themselves and many politicans have their own political views section, especially Congressman John Murtha's website. Therefore, I do not see the problem about the political views section, because its important to know each representatives position.

[edit] Transcript v. the Official Transcript

Since C56C keeps pretending that he posted the official transcript and that thus MRMKJason deleted the official transcript, I thought that it would be a useful exercise to note exactly how C56C's transcript differs from the real thing. Below, everywhere the official transcript has portions deleted by C56C, I restore them with a strike through them; and everywhere that C56C inserts non-trivial additional words, I underline them:

An angry Mathews asked, “What relevance is that to anything here on this show?”
IREY: I don‘t know it does have a relevance to what you‘re talking about at the moment. I just listened to your interview with Mr. Murtha. But these are just questions…
MATTHEWS: Well, do you think I should ask him—do you think I should put this question to Murtha or I should have put this question to Murtha?
IREY: Well…
and [Matthews:] “What's the purpose of this question, to intimidate [Murtha] or what?”
Irey replied, “No, I don't know what it was. You have a wonderful brother that is going to do a good job leading Pennsylvania.”
Matthews followed with “That could maybe be the case, but do you think it was right for your flack to bring this up as part of a set up for an interview with you?”
To which Irey said, “I think what he [Irey campaign manager] was doing was trying to give you some information to know what kind of questions we have been asking Murtha.”
In a stern voice Matthews concludes, "OK. I think I don‘t need — one thing is — you know, I love my brother. I don't need to be reminded he's the Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. in Pennsylvania. Let‘s move on to the substance, grown-up stuff here.”
IREY: OK.

C56C will certainly keep referring to what he presented as “the official transcript”. JzG will almost surely continue to administrate with near-zero integrity. But I did like shining this light on what they are up-to. — 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose? When I watched the interview and read the transcript the interviewer appeared to be attacking Commissioner Irey and over-reacting to a question. Obviously, Chris Matthews was very emotional about the question, but its called "Hardball." Usually, tough questions are going to be asked and I think he felt like he was in the "hotseat." I think whether there was a controversy is a matter of perspective and the footnotes and the external links link to the official transcript and the video of the interview. The paragraph I cleaned up I think is nuetral, because it states that Matthews made many accusations and Commissioner Irey did not explain why the question was asked. Take into account that the question does have relevance to the interview, because his brother did cut the ribbon for her headquarters, but Chris Matthews got emotional (why he got emotional is not really explained), but its interesting that he over-reacted over the question. How many interviews have questions that are off-topic, many, so why is this question that was going to be asked of Congressman Murtha any different. On the other hand, Senator John Edwards brought up Vice-President Dick Cheney's daughter in a debate, but the Democrats and some Republicans did not condemn him for what he did. So I think the Hardball issue is merely someone trying to spin the interview, but I would argue that it should not exist at all. If there's consensus to have it removed than I would support that. There is a double-standard and Matthews brother is only a Republican and not part of the alternative lifestyle (which is controversial for some, but being a Republican or Democrat can be controversial). Still, this is murky political waters that we are venturing into, because there are those that come from a political persuasion and non-neutral perspective. Still, I do not see how pointing out that Matthews brother is a Republican (I do not think being Republican or Democrat or Independent is controversial) can cause so much emotion from Matthews. Still, its also a matter of perspective if he was angry or emotional. Yet, it appears that the person that posted the Hardball interview as a controversy has their own political motives and magnified something that was not even an issue in the news. I did not see the New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN carrying any news that there was a controversy on Hardball. There should be a litmus test of what controversy is and I really do not think there was any controversy in Hardball interview. They were just questions and people are allowed freedom of speech, so I do not see how asking a particular question of someone, especially on a show called "Hardball"-which is about asking tough questions could be considered controversial. MRMKJason
  • First, if the inference of controversy is unique to a group of Wikipedia editors, then it violates the “original research” policy. Nor does Wikipedia policy accept just any guy with a website as an appropriate source for an assertion. So there should be a citable assertion of controversy by a news service such as those that you name, one of the wire services, CBS, or somesuch. — . 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Second, of course, if any quotation is to appear in the article, it should be accurate. Third, if it is to appear in the article, editors should not insinuate their own judgments in auxillary words. 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you two (or one person) are being disingenuous with what you claim is misleading. There is no indication[6] that it was misleading, but certain remarks were highlighted with the full transcript and video linked. Posting an entire transcript, is a copy-vio, while you seem not to have quoted the user, C56C, in his/her entity. On the other hand 12.72 and MRMKJason only seem concerned with one article; this one. Arbusto 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The cooking of the transcript is so clear that only the perfectly shameless would pretend otherwise. Remarks weren't merely highlighted; tone was interpretted, the impression was lent that Irey was speechless, and discussion was said to conclude when it had not. I do not know whether MRMKJason has correctly interpretted Matthews, nor do I need to know, because neither his “original research” nor the “original research” of C56C belong in the article. I fought C56C's corruption of the transcript because it was evident, and I called for proof that there was controversy because of the WP “original research” policy. (Unlike MRMKJason, I have never deleted the reports of the interview, but instead sought to have it reported without spin.) — 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Republic Interview Inquiry

I understand placing the interview as a reference, but do not see the relevance in the article itself. Also, it appears the entry is being spun by someone of an opposing political viewpoint and I do not think the entry is neutral. It appears to be more about Robinson than Irey and it does not say if Irey supported Robinson's views. Actually, if someone of an opposing political viewpoint interviewed Irey, would Irey be holding those viewpoints too. I do not think the inference that the entrant made holds. Also, I think the interview should be relegrated to a reference and this is just like the Hardball interview. I do not think these articles are suppose to be for people's political viewpoints.

Irey has given several interviews to Jim Robinson, founder of the Free Republic internet forum, which has been accused of extremism[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649485/posts?q=1&&page=51]. Robinson has recently called for the expulsion of all homosexuals from "churches, universities, schools, the military" and all other venues of the public.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713830/posts] Irey condemned John Murtha in the interview for what she claimed was a vote Murtha cast as a congressman that allowed "Terri Schiavo to starve to death".

Press with controversial figures is wiki-worthy. On a side note, single purpose accounts can be banned. Arbusto 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop grabbing for straws. The very article which you cite does not treat single purpose accounts as necessarily or even probably bad. Meanwhile, labelling dial-up IP numbers as you are doing is abusive. If you continue, I will place a last warning on your discussion page; if you continue past that point, then I will file a claim of vandalism. — 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's the place to "report" me. What type of reaction do you think you'll get? Arbusto 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not the place at which you would be reported; you would be reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism. (Reporting to Incidents is more likely to produce musings than action.) And, since it would have been explaiend to you that ISP assign new IP numbers at every session to dial-up connections, I think that you would be give a temporary block. That ought to figure as less important in your mind that issues of dishonor and of degrading Wikipedia, but perhaps it will be necessary. — 09:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding tags is not vandalism. Try there though. See if they'll block me for tagging a SPA. Also read WP:TE on your Murtha edits. Removing the content of a 60 Minutes interview of Irey's opponent WILL get you blocked. Arbusto 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Arbusto 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Tags are not excluded from possible tools of vandlism, and you have deliberately vandalized the above comment. I have therefore place a last warning on your Discussion page. Also, the “content” removed at John Murtha fell into four categories: Redundant requotation of the immediately previously quoted passage, pure POV rhetoric, material so badly written that one could not tell whether it was quotation (and of whom) or POV rhetoric, and a tangential statement of a generals opinion (which I've restored for now, but which probably doesn't fit in the article). —70.166.5.157 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You should move your claims to: [7]. Arbusto 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed my tag is being vandalized. Also, I am new to wikipedia edits and its taking me time to make other inclusions. Still, I have made other outside contributions and created my own article that was removed, but that was on a military blog. As well, I think it is inappropriate for people to vandalize other peoples tags, but I am looking forward to the creation of WikiPedia of creating reputable editors for WikiPedia, because I am tired of people making edits for their own political views. MRMKJason

I have undone the vandalistic labelling of accounts as “Possible special purpose” as Arbusto was patently unable to defend this attack when Admin:Luna Santin went through the edits of a few accounts so labelled, and challenged as Arbusto to show how they fit the notion. —75.18.113.152 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Political views” sub-section

An anonymous editor deleted the “Political views” sub-section of this article. I have restored it. Unless we are going to claim that the race was a beauty contest or concerned solely with the issues that erupted in more bitter controversy, this subsection is plainly relevant. —12.72.69.88 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)