Talk:George Felix Allen/Archive 1/1a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 POV 2 LV comment 3 No military, no presidency 4 this guy is becoming important 5 Quotations 6 did he call the naacp an extermist group+displayed a Confederate flag+a noose at his home? 7 Conservatives' front-runner 8 Early Life 9 Confederate flag 10 Article name change 11 Requested move 11.1 Survey

POV

I will not make additional changes to this article this evening. I do not wish to get involved into an "edit war" with Stirling Newberry. I will simply add the NPOV warning Jersyko, I would argue that just because something is sourced does not mean it should be included. The first charge "idiotic" is from a political opponent. I could just easily submit just about any comment from Ann Coulter about democrats into an article on this site and that would be equally wrong. That is her opinion. I argue "Other criticisms" do not belong in an encyclopedia. They are not fact just opinion. Stirling Newberry, a self described Democrat keeps adding them to the article. I believe this is vandalism and will warn. I am refraining from making any more changes for the time being so that I do not violate Wikipedia policy. I have already gone over the 3RR limit. Nnoppinger 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Any relevant, properly cited opinion from a notable person is fully acceptable under Wikipedia policy. And yes, that includes Ann Coulter's opinion. If you believe otherwise, please cite a policy to support your opinion. -- noosphere 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone watch thier pov when editing this article. Some of the controversies listed, particularly "Other criticisms," does not belong in an encyclopedia and I am removing it. They are personal opinions and not facts. I am leaving the other controversies for now, but I am suggesting that at the very least the people that they are cleaned up. George Allen is a public figure and some of these maybe newsworthy and should be included if and only if the adherte to NPOV. Nnoppinger 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right about the Al Gore criticism, anyway, it seems like a minor criticism at best. The other criticism in the "other criticisms" section, however, is sourced to the Washingtonian (magazine). I'm not sold on its inclusion, but it seems that it would be at least somewhat more approrpriate for an encyclopedia article because it does have such a source. In any event, I'm ok with the removal of that section. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This page clearly contains non-neutral statements. It appears to be watched and changed for partisan political reasons by Allen critics. Obviously, any changes will just be changed back by those critics in an effort to make Allen look bad, so the page should, at a minimum, contain a neutrality disputed tag. 13:13, 2 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidIM (talk • contribs)

Can you point to specific instances of POV in the article that violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy? I would like to work to remove the POV if you can. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, most glaringly, is the violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The controversy section is very long compared to articles of some other politicians and compared to the substance of the rest of this article. Even sections not within the controversy section contain racial accusations (see last sentence here), possibly inflammatory quotes with no context to the article (see second paragraph here), references to negative events of questionable importance to the article (see first paragraph here), or undue weight to the business troubles of a company of which he was formerly a board member, with external links to highly speculative sources (see 2nd and 3rd paragraph). Not only that, but the opening paragraph mentions the macaca controversy. Isn't there more that could be added about his voting record, his political beliefs, legislation he supported that has been passed and legislation on which he was opposed? It seems that there is more information that could be added along these lines. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see strong arguments for removing the quote by Allen's sister about their mother ("infantile"), and for removing the info about graffitti in high school. On the other hand, I'm puzzled by your reference to "speculative sources" (plural) in the "Law partner" section, since only ONE source is partisan (and it's unclear to me exactly what a "speculative" source is.) As you know, wikipedia policy DOES allow use of partisan sources providing that the information from them is objective, as I believe is the case in this section. May I suggest focusing on specific text rather than attacking acceptable sources? John Broughton 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see strong arguments for removing the quote by Allen's sister about their mother ("infantile"), and for removing the info about graffitti in high school.

Good, I hope we can gradually remove some of this.

I'm puzzled by your reference to "speculative sources" (plural)

That was a good catch (to notice the s (to denote plural)). When I was writing, I was thinking only of the one source, but writing about the article in general, so I guess I just added the s to speak about sources in general. That was unintentional. As for the word speculation, I pulled it from our previous discussion.

May I suggest focusing on specific text rather than attacking acceptable sources?

Yes, of course you can suggest that. By all means, go ahead and do so. I'm not going to muzzle you when you're obviously striving to create a better article. But that doesn't mean your suggestion is necessarily a valid one. An article can be made non-NPOV by either the text or the sources. You are correct that the policy does allow partisan sources. However, the second paragraph in this section (in the NPOV policy) also suggests a balanced approach. Maybe there's another source ("partisan" or not) that refutes some of the claims of this (American Prospect) article. On the other hand, perhaps no source yet exists which refutes the information in this (American Prospect) article. If this is the case, I would not suggest deleting the source (as my previous words suggest, I'm can accept the current wording (I don't think it warrants more than 1-2 sentences)). However, that does not mean that this (American Prospect) source, in combination with other wording/sources/etc. is not making the article a little to POV (which I believe it is).

"attacking"

"Criticism" =? "attacking" Ufwuct 01:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're suggesting deleting a properly cited claim when no refutation of it exists, for the sake of "balance"? You're joking, right? Ooops. Sorry, I misread what you said. You said, "I would not suggest deleting the source", and I missed the "not".  :) -- noosphere 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ufuct, if there are a lot of negative claims that can be cited about the subject of a Wikipedia article, there is nothing in WP:NPOV to suggest those claims have to be "balanced" with positive claims, or otherwise sweetened, euphamized, or de-emphasized. WP:NPOV only requires that the claims that are presented in an article are presented fairly and objectively. It does not mean that any given claim has to be "balanced" by an opposing claim, nor that the number of negative claims have to be "balanced" with a similar number of positive claims or anything like that.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Jim Jones may have a large number of claims that don't reflect too kindly on the man. That doesn't mean we have to dig up an equal number of positive claims or brand the article POV. An article may be largely critical of its subject, and still conform to WP:NPOV, as long as the claims are presented fairly and objectively. -- noosphere 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It [NPOV] does not mean that any given claim has to be "balanced" by an opposing claim, nor that the number of negative claims have to be "balanced" with a similar number of positive claims or anything like that. -Noosphere

I agree that no tit-for-tat balance is required. It's only the goal of balance that we should uphold. If there's no more than 1-2 positive things that can be said about the man, well, so be it; if that is the case, the article should contain the 20 (for example) negative things and the 1-2 positive claims. My point was only that we should give it a try (and write a few positive/neutral things, a few more things about his voting record, or sources that dispute some of the claims already present). I believe we have had many enthusiastic editors writing about the controversies since early August, and that is to be expected. I read a little about George Allen long before these controversies arose and seem to remember more than just controversy. Perhaps since I am suggesting that more effort be put forth, I should walk the walk and shoulder this work upon myself (but please don't jump on me if I'm slow about it). Also, per John Broughton's suggestion (see further below in this section), perhaps we can start new sections on this talk page if necessary. Thanks. Ufwuct 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with suggesting that people need to write more positive things about the subject of a Wikipedia article. However that's quite different from claiming that an article is POV because there aren't enough positive things in it. As I pointed out above, that's just not what WP:NPOV is about. It's about fairly and objectively presenting the claims that are written about in the article, not about adhering to a positive to negative claim ratio. -- noosphere 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned four specific places where the text seems POV, and a general concern (controversy section too long, and couldn't more info be added on other topics). I commented on three of these; no one else has responded directly to any of the five, I think. I suspect that there would be more, and more productive, discussion on this page if you were to start five new sections (or, at least, a new section with five bullet points), so that those who want to engage with you on one or more of the points can do so in a more specific way. And then, if/when you do an edit, you can point to the specific section where it was discussed (or you offered to discuss it), rather than pointing to a lengthy section like this one. John Broughton 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion. I don't know if I have the energy to debate in five different sections, but I will create some smaller sections. Also, it appears two of the points I have made aren't really contentious, so maybe they can be changed without discussion. Cheers. Ufwuct 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The people with POV concerns need to explictly described them. Wanting the Macaca statement removed out of the intro. isn't point of view because anyone who has followed the election, Allen, or politics in the last week have know that is what Allen is most famous for right now. It cost him about 10 points in the polls- a huge drop. Arbusto 20:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Any more concerns can we remove the POV tag? Arbusto 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could address the concerns that have been raised before the tag is removed, (regardless of whether there are other outstanding, as-yet-unvoiced concerns)? I made one of the changes last night, testing the waters to see if my edit would experience an immediate revert. It hasn't, so I'll make another change tonight. Other than this edit, I don't know if any other concerns have been addressed, so maybe we should wait to make a few modifications first. I think this topic is still under discussion and I think a few others might be under this impression too (see, for example, J.B.'s 18:50, 4 September 2006 post). Thank you very much for your patience. Ufwuct 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see new section below. Ufwuct 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

LV comment

I can't believe there is no talk page for this article. For someone that people think will be the next Republican presidential candidate, there's not much here. I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction here (yes I know WP is not a crystal ball): Allen-Rice would be a winning ticket for the right, even if HRC does run. Just thought I'd go on record so when it happens, I can have bragging rights. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You should be wrong now that they have visual proof that he is a rampant racist w/r to his macaca incident. John wesley 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No military, no presidency

With the war on terror, Americans will want a strong leader with a military background. When it comes time to pull the lever, Hillary, her lack of international and military experience will make her too weak for voters. George Allen is in the same boat. Gilluiani's pro-choice stance is too liberal for the GOP and the nation is not ready (I am) for a female, black president, with no prior service record (maybe in peace time). That leaves a possible McCain / Kerry show down in 2008 with McCain winning easily.

McCain has done almost everything possible to piss-off the Republican base. He can't get nominated unless he goes ahead and joins the Democrats. All George Allen needs to do is to satisfy the Republican base with his words and actions, and he's a shoo-in to be the next president.

--Bedford 13:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, McCain will never get the Republican nomination. And I think the United States is ready for a female President, even a Black one. The righties already love her, and she would almost for sure pull votes from the Dems solid base of African-Americans and women. And I doubt Kerry will get the Democratic nomination after the beating he (more specifically, his campaign) took last time. Okay... no more of this talk, back to writing articles. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Folks, this page isn't to discuss George Allen, it's to discuss the article about him. I agree with Lord Voldemort's comment: "no more of this talk". For general political conversations, please check out Democratic Underground or Free Republic (those actual websites, not our articles about them). JamesMLane 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

this guy is becoming important

So the fact that he's divorced should be mentioned

--grazon 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I added it, but I haven't found the name of his first wife, the date of the marriage, the date of the divorce, or whether there were any children. All I can find is that USA Today says the divorce occurred "in the early 1980s". [1] We should try to get the full information. JamesMLane 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

this should help: http://www.nndb.com/people/185/000032089/

--grazon 03:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

There is no need for a quotes section in this article. The one quote provided is neither notable nor truly NPOV. What is the point of the quote? To show he swears? To show he cares about money for Virginia? I just don't get it. Wikiquotes is to be used for random direct quotations. Might I suggest you add this there. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

did he call the naacp an extermist group+displayed a Confederate flag+a noose at his home?

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000192.htm

Who cares if he did? I don't. I think the NAACP is an extremist group. He's a former governor of the capital state of the Confederacy. Why shouldn't he have a confederate flag? A noose? Funny sense of humor I think.

Give me something substantive, like he participated in a lynching and you'll have my attention. -dviljoen

He did try to apologize for lynchings at one point as a Senator, but when asked which lynchings he was talking about, he feel silent on advice of counsel. [2]

You're kidding, right? You really think Allen's having such items in his living/working space is inconsequential? Were you asleep during your high school American history class, or just the part that focused on the ninety-year span from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.92.206 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 25 May 2006

Funny sense of humor? How about if a politician had a non-working model of Auschwitz with a Crematorium that actually bellows smoke? Would that be going too far? Sheesh.

Conservatives' front-runner

I was surprised, but I learned earlier in the week that according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, George Allen is outdoing other conservatives currently in the 2008 race for the GOP nomination. He's at 7%, while Frist is at 6% and Romney is in third. Wikipedia, please post this information! -Amit, Feb. 19, 2006

Early Life

Can we get some more on his early life and what his motivations were for getting into politics? He's going to run for President, so we might as well get to know him a little better. Ryanluck 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps information from this New Republic article should be incorporated? - Jersyko·talk 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added some information from the relevant article and also asked permission from TNR to use the high school yearbook photo in this article. - Jersyko·talk 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Allen become a fan of "southern" culture or "western"? I don't want to register to read the article, but the talk about Hee Haw and cowboy boots sounds more country/western than just southern. --Ajdz 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The fascination with Confederate flags sounds like being a fan "southern culture" to me. john k 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus the whole becoming a UVA good old boy thing. john k 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you don't want to register to read the article, why on earth are you questioning the paraphrase of the article by somebody who did? If you want to see if the paraphrase is accurate, read the article. If you don't want to read the article, then don't make comments about what you think it probably says. john k 04:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking here, not changing the text. Relax. --Ajdz 18:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd hoped to get permission to use the yearbook photo from TNR, but I was denied permission to use it without the POV caption. Clearly, we can't use the photo with the caption and adhere to WP:NPOV. It seems they don't want us to use it without the caption, so I won't upload it under a fair use rationale out of respect for their wishes. It's a shame, it's such a nice little picture . . . - Jersyko·talk 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Confederate flag

Part of my recent edit regarding Allen's display of the Confederate flag as a teenager, which Allen has acknowledged and confirmed in one respect (the yearbook lapel pin) and has stated is "entirely possible" in another (the car flag, which was confirmed via an eyewitness), keeps getting removed. The information is verifiable and sourced. I would like to know why, exactly, it keeps getting removed. - Jersyko·talk 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

- Jerysko, The reason it keeps being removed is because you keep re-posting it. This is a cheap political low-blow, the kind of smear jobs that has recently given wikipedia such a bad name. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/28/D8H95FG06.html

I am just struggling to see how the fact that Allen once took a pic with a Confederate flag lapel pin, could be of any value to intellectual discussion. But I see this post and your determination to post it as the obvios political hatchett job that it is. You obviously have an axe to grind against Allen. There is plenty of negative information on Allen(actually probably more than positive) and I have not attempted to erase it.

But I find your blatant attempt to incite hatred of the Senator, by trying to play the race card to be nothing short of reprehensible.

(Also, I may have edited more than three times, but might I remind you that you did the same continually re-posting!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.77.228 (talk • contribs) .

With all due respect, let's assume good faith. I am not attempting a "political hatchet" job in re Allen. I actually know very little about him, or at least I did before I read the New Republic article about him. My intent is merely to present relevant, verifiable, sourced information. The information I presented adheres to all of those criteria, as it is descriptive of Allen's early life (in the "early life" section of the article) and is verifiable via the source cited. It's even been at least partially confirmed by Allen's office itself! (see the article)
Finally, yes, I have reverted your deletion of the information 3 times. You've removed it more than three times, as another editor has stepped in to revert your deletion as well, thus you are in violation of the three revert rule that I've already warned you about on your talk page. I will not report your violation as I know you are a new user here, but please keep it in mind in the future. Let's discuss this here, not through a revert war. As it stands now, at least one other editor agrees with me that the information belongs. Let's see what others have to say. - Jersyko·talk 04:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, While you may have a point that may be cited, it does not mean that it is worthy of being posted nor does it mean that it should be posted. I can find plenty of sources that claim that Armstrong never walked on the moon, but rather the whole thing was filmed in a television studio. Therefore, just because one Magazine (especially one that has seen its reputation destroyed as result of teh Stephen Glass scandal) reports something does not mean that it is worthy of posting.

My objection to this post is that it is intentionally trying to inject racism in to the political debate. I don't see you or anyone else trying to post the fact that Sen. Allen sponsored a bill, formally apologizing to African-Americans for the government's failure to prevent lynchings in the South. Instead, people are trying to find the one piece of evidence that will label him a racist.

I don't find this to be intellectually honest. If you want to talk about Allen and his record on race. But in the same sentence/paragraph that you talk about Confederate flags please post all of the work he has done to repair race relations in this country. That is if you truly believe in acting "in good faith". comment was added by 71.75.77.228

The reason that no one is trying to post the fact about the lynching apology bill is that the bill is already mentioned in the article, and in fact has been since this edit in November 2005. There's no justification for anyone who dislikes Allen to try to censor that information (and I don't think there's been any attempt to censor it). By the same token, there's no justification for anyone who likes Allen to try to censor the information about his pro-Confederate past and his brush with the law arising from his racist vandalism in high school. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I give. Mr. Lane has revealed his ideology, and thus proved the point: Wikipedia is truly the place for smear politics. You all have taken wikipedia and used it to your own ends. You win, I concede, the wikipedia universe is obviously not for the likes of me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.77.228 (talk • contribs) .

You said, "I can find plenty of sources that claim that Armstrong never walked on the moon, but rather the whole thing was filmed in a television studio." But can you find reliable sources (like a respected newspaper or political journal like TNR) that make that claim? And has Armstrong himself admitted that it was true, like Allen's office confirming the flag lapel pin and saying the car flag was "entirely possible"??? Wikipedia is not the place for "smear politics." It is also not the place to carefully choose to include facts that are only praiseworthy of political candidates. The article mentions his use of the confederate flag when he was in high school, but NOWHERE does it say "Allen is a racist." In fact, the article mentions that Allen supported the lynching apology bill last year. The reader is left to form his or her own opinion of Allen; the article is merely presenting the facts from reputable sources. - Jersyko·talk 14:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article in The New Republic is a major article about Allen in a well-respected (Glass aside) publication. Much of the information in it was apparently confirmed by Allen's office. Personally, I think that more could be said - notably the stuff in his sister's memoirs about him being (essentially) a sadistic bully when they were children might be worth a mention (although I'd prefer to cite directly from the book, and not from Lizza's paraphrase of it). The claims that 71.75.77.228 has made about The New Republic and comparisons of this article to moon hoax theories are the most serious smears here. These seem to verge on defamation of Ryan Lizza. john k 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is 129.137.84.230 a sock puppet for 71.75.77.228? Not very mature. This is clearly relevant information, from a reputable source. One plagarizer (Stephen Glass), caught and fired, does not make an entire news outfit (TNR) forever inaccurate. If 71/75.77.228/129.137.84.230 would like to make a wortwhile NPOV contribution to the entry he/she/they should create a new section on "allegations racial insensitivity" that mentions both the New Republic material, Allen's early voting history on issues such Martin Luther King day, and the more recent voting history on issues such apologizing for lynching. Just removing unpleasant but apparnetly truthful information violates the principles of Wikipedia, as well as plain honesty. Lucky Adrastus 22:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I removerd this as well the controversies section as this does not conform to a neutral point of view. WARNING TO THE PERSON WHO KEEPS POSTING THIS. If you are going to keep bringing up ad hominem and unverifiable attacks, I will do my best to see to it that your privelages here arte terminated. Use facts and keep this article neutral. The New Republic piece is also full of unverifiable sources. I could just as easily edit Al Gore's article by truthfully proclaiming that he receives payments from a mining company for use of porperty he owns. Or that he still owns many shares of Occidental Petroleum, but without the other side of the story, that woudl not be neutral. By cherry pciking what you chose to put in here you are violating neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nnoppinger (talk • contribs) .

The New Republic is a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. You are not, however, only blanking information cited to TNR, but also information cited to the Washington Post and other well-known news outlets. The information is verified and relevant to this article. Your repeated blanking is vandalism. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name change

This article's name has been changed recently by Calmypal. The first time the reason was: "Consistency with other politician George Wigram Allen" (refering to a 19th century Australian politician). The second time with the reason: "I don't see a compelling reason to keep this at George Allen (politician). People looking for him there will still find him, via a disambiguaton page, which will not be unusual for anyone pare"

With hundreds of articles linked to this page, and the potential for this article to become quite active in the future, I would like comments on what the proper name should be for this article. Should it remain at George Allen (politician), where is has been for most of its history this year, or at George Felix Allen, the name preferred by Calmypal? Or something else?

Whatever the choice, it is not so great to make people go through an extra disambiguation page if he is now the primary person with this name that people will be searching for. So perhaps George Allen should be made a redirect to this article and the disambiguation page put at George Allen (disambiguation). NoSeptember ^talk 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was cut off. The second reason should be followed by, "nthesising it." Anyway, NoSeptember's done a good job summarising the situation and I'll wait for feedback. All I have to add is that I would not have moved it again if someone had reverted me within an hour, even a day, after I first moved it. By Wikipedia standards, a week is ages, and I took this as implicit approval. - Calmypal (T) 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

During a slow period (and pre-midterm elections is a deliberately slow period for potential presidential candidates), a week before being reverted doesn't indicate much of anything :-). NoSeptember ^talk 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the George Allen page should go directly to this article, and a disambiguation notice be placed at the top. Allen's prominence can only grow in the coming years, and even now, he is by far the most prominent of the "George Allens"--RWR8189 01:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Jkatzen 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here. A disambig link at the top would suffice. - Jersyko·talk 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This George Allen is the only living one with a Wikipedia article, and is surely the most prominent. I recommend that we vote on moving this to "George Allen" and linking to "George Allen (disambiguation)" at the top of the page. — Elembis 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

George Felix Allen is just bad. He should be at either George Allen or George Allen (politician) or George Allen (U.S. politician), depending on how prominent we find him to be. I'd say that he's prominent enough that George Allen is probably fine. john k 02:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the preceeding comments. This article should be at George Allen with a disambig link at the top. NoSeptember ^talk 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree; he never uses his middle name, and is also never referred to in the media by his full name. Article titles are supposed to reflect the name most commonly used. If he's nominated for president, then he should be under George Allen, with the others noted under George Allen (disambiguation); until that happens, he should be under George Allen (politician) (or arguably George Allen (U.S. politician)). MisfitToys 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)