Talk:Bob Allen (Florida politician)

Not a congressman - infobox misleading

Both body text & the infobox indicated that Allen is a congressman, when he's a member of the state house. I changed the body text, not sure if the infobox has a different template that should be called, or it should just be deleted. Sylvank 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Premature to call him gay?

Should he really be in the category of Gay Republicans? He could be Bi or just experimenting or it could be a mistake (maybe he thought the cop was a woman). Dom316 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the LGBT cats as potentially libelous. Asarelah 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the arrest report - doesn't sound like much of a mistake. 24.18.214.147 06:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the arrest report "sounds like". Even if Allen is convicted of solicitation, that's still not a basis for labeling him as "gay". The whole idea of a "Gay Republican" category is ludicrously WP:OR unless the criterion is "self-identified". -- Jibal 02:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, it was all a big mistake. i frequently accidentally solicit sex from muscular black undercover officers in public bathrooms (sometimes i mistake them for women, other times i mean to ask for a roll of toilet paper and what comes out of my mouth is "hey can i suck you off for 20 bucks?"). oops i just did it again while i was typing this.

Headlines like this bring out the crazies in Wikipedia. I appreciate the level headed ones for keeping up standards. Don't relent folks! Florida Today and other responsible printed publications only for citations. Just delete made-up garbage. Delete attempts to classify or categorize or otherwise perform "original research." Don't allow the garbage spewers to take over this article. Nor does this have anything to do with Titusville, except that Allen represented Titusville. If people reading the Titusville article want to find out about Allen, they can come here. The info doesn't "need" to be in sixty places, or more than one, for that matter. Student7 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Love of water sports?

According to his page, he is into water sports. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? 70.142.27.82 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It isn't relevant. Asarelah 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Juicy comments relevant or irrelevant to article

Clearly Allen was arrested for something. Wikipedia has provided that vital information. It has provided footnotes to anyone wanting to feel more disgusted. Providing the intrinsic details furnished to the newspaper is not helpful to wikipedia's intent of being an encyclopedia rather than a publisher of candid vulgarity. If it does so, there is no difference between wikipedia and a tabloid. If this makes no sense to you, that is okay. There is a standard for living persons that must be followed. See WP:BLP. This is why we don't furnish details, besides being unecessary and quite possibly wrong.

For those of you who can think and don't require standards, it is useful to consider who you are trying to make mad and why. If the answer is "nobody," great. But if you are trying to stick you finger in someone's eye, it is unproductive to do so in wikipedia. Articles can be produced that are accurate but not controversial. This should (actually is) a requirement.

This material has been sufficiently referenced. It needs no addtional details. Let's say the policemen's statement went on for pages. Where would this article stop? At the end of his statement? 'That makes no sense. It shouldn't be here at all because of WP:BLP. Student7 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

the problem here is that you are violating both WP:BLP and WP:CENSOR. please review the section on well-known public figures, to wit: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". Please see Larry Craig, which goes into great detail on the allegations in his case as well, because reliable sources have reported it, it is notable, it is relevant, and because wikipedia does not censor. if you have some other justification, please present it; the ones you've presented above unfortunately do not hold up under scrutiny. as well, please maintain WP:CIVIL - your second paragraph appears to be a blanket ad hominem directed at other editors. Anastrophe 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

followup: that said, if the already sources provided also provide allen's side of the story, that should be included as well. Anastrophe 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It belongs in the article. I don't disagree that the incident belongs in the article. The question is whether to cover it like a tabloid magazine or like an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a transitory "flash" headline news source - articles here are for the long term. However foolish it makes the person seem is not relevant. The criteria that POV people use is "how bad can I make this guy appear, however innocent he may be under American law." Without a pov, that issue disappears. Think about how this issue will be documented five years or ten years from now when hardly anyone can remember Bob Allen, never mind trying to worry about who to run against him and how bad to make him look to make sure he loses if he does run. Without trying to influence current votes, the issue goes away. Most of the story becomes dross and superfluous. If the issue is plea bargained into something else entirely, what then? Do you report it like it is or update it to reflect what the court has issued? If you don't care what a future court will say, perhaps you have a pov. This is a "little" guy who happens to have an article (some people doubt that state legislators should have articles). Pretending that this is some important case that requires meticulous attention to everything that anyone says is sheer exaggeration. Bob Allen may well be a flawed character, but an encyclopedia is not the place to explore this. That would be original research. The arrest is there with the references with all its detail. Copying it into the article is uncalled for and I believe violates WP:BLP.Student7 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

once more and with feeling: WP:AGF. the bulk of your post above is speculation about the motives of other editors, and as such is offensive. you do not know what my POV or motive is, but you are assuming that you do. that's a clear violation of Assume Good Faith. your mention of WP:OR is a red-herring: nothing in the edit you reverted had any original research whatsoever - it was simply statement from articles about the arrest. you are censoring information on the basis that you consider it to be 'tabloid', yet the sources references are certainly not tabloids. mr allen is a public figure by dint of being a duly elected legislator. his deeds or misdeeds, as reported by reliable sources, are not to be censored from an article simply because you do not like them. you state that it violates WP:BLP. please cite chapter and verse from the specific section you believe pertains. i believe the Public Figure portion of WP:BLP obtains. legislators are explicitly public figures - it's inherent in the job. i have zero interest in bob allen, i don't care about his deeds or misdeeds, but i do care about editors censoring reliably cited material because they do not like that material. 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Sigh!
*For starters, let's take "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." While we often use newspapers as a source, we can easily tolerate this for non-controversial stuff. Or at least I do. However, newspapers are not secondary sources. They are primary ones. The tabloid nature of the report should be a giveaway anyway, that the source is not high quality.
*Next,"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Really.
*Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Hard to believe, but low level governmnent officials do have some right to privacy. I even think the Clintons should have, but oh, well.
*"Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." What is responsible, conservative, neutral and encyclopedic about this writeup in full? It's tabloid pure and simple.
*"... even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." Are extra details relevant when the charge and references would suffice?
*While current editing tried to follow some standard, the article has attracted "pile on" edits which have been defamatory. Like dung attracting flies IMO. It would be better to do without the extra stuff to start with.
*"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Titillating. Hmmm.
*"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." One or two events? How about one event? Don't include every detail? Gosh!
This will do for this writing.Student7 03:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

point by point:

• newspapers are secondary sources. please familiarize yourself with WP:PSTS. your definition of 'tabloid' seems to be "anything i don't like". you've provided no actual, concrete basis for this judgement.
• your second point is meritless. wikipedia is not generating the "tabloid" or "sensationalist" content, it is communicating what reliable sources have reported. if an editor wrote "mr. allen is a degenerate pervert", that would fall within your claim, but nobody has done so.
• third attempt to paint the sources as tabloids, without any factual or verifiable basis for the claim.
• it rather depends upon what constitutes "extra details". the basis for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. we don't censor details simply because they are unsavory to some segment of the readership. your efforts have been directed entirely towards censoring details published by reliable sources.
• here we may have a small window of agreement. excruciating detail does tend to attract vandals. finding a balance between too much and too little detail is one for consensus, not ham-handed removal of sourced materials, however. on one end of the spectrum is republication of the entire Probable Cause statement of the arresting officer. the other end of the spectrum is to elide every detail down to "allen was once arrested". somewhere in between lies reason.
• fourth reference to tabloid, sensationalist, titillating. i can't speak for other editors, but for myself, i get no titillation from the arrest report. you seem to be hell-bent to have every verifiable detail represented as being trash, which is fine, so long as you acknowledge you are pushing your POV over reliably sourced materials.
• i don't believe the previous edits have included every detail. for the most part, it has been one or two sentences, from the arresting office report, and from mr. allen. not even a long paragraph worth of stuff. they've been referenced, on topic, and neutral to the extent that both 'sides' were presented.

mr. allen is a public figure - it's part of the job description. he's a minor character, but that doesn't change his status. the details are in the public record, no editor has stated "i saw the whole thing here's what happened". neither did the article speculate on his motives or those of the officers, for that matter. a brief summary of the allegations, along with mr. allens response, is wholey appropriate under wikipedia guidelines. i guess it's time for me to submit my first RfC. Anastrophe 06:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate not amending the article (which I hadn't looked at!) during the discussion. I have tried to amend the statement with significant details which (I agree) were missing. See what you think. Student7 14:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC: what level of detail is acceptable under the guidelines

my first RfC! the core of this issue is in the discussion immediately preceding this RfC - 'juicy comments relevant or irrelevant to article'. thanks. Anastrophe 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We should follow the lead of the secondary sources like newspapers & magazines. We should avoid digging through primary sources and deciding on our own which details are worth reporting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will - and as a personal preference for the tone and color of the encylcopedia in general, I'd prefer the lead to be along the lines of "He was arrested in July 2007 on charges of solicitation." (with any of the many choices as ref.) Privatemusings 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Resignation

Everyone put in a lot of effort on this article. You won't believe it, of course, but no one decides to resign based on a wikipedia article. This article is now as stale as last weeks toast. It will be lucky to survive a future Afd. Spending hours or days editing one pecadillo is not really worth it, IMO. This is not "history" this is still tabloid and fairly useless in the long term. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

you appear to be attempting to make a point of some sort; unfortunately, i for one don't understand what point you're trying to make. this bio article is short; it describes who the person is; it describes a notable event that eventually changed the course of this person's life/career, and it does so accurately and briefly. you are betraying your POV on the matter by describing the event as a [sic]'pecadillo'. we all have our peccadillos - one of mine is fried foods. soliciting sex in a bathroom hardly qualifies as a peccadillo. when was the last time you were arrested and convicted for soliciting sex in a bathroom? anybody else here care to share their experiences doing that? personally i could not care less what one does in their personal life, so long as nobody else is harmed by their actions. unfortunately, the congressman chose to engage in a patently high-risk behavior, which (dimestore freud here) suggests to me a desire to get caught, or in other words, a classic 'cry for help'. i feel for the guy. however, wikipedia isn't here to 'be nice', 'be mean', or determine motive. it's here to describe verifiable information. the article does so. Anastrophe (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel, as I always do for these things "in the news" that there is too much editing "for the short run" which we all "have" to spend a lot of time on, which turns out to be extremely perishable in the long run. I was in on the "Duke" story, as it unfolded, for example. It did have long term consequences, but almost none of them anticipated. The editors put in hundreds of hours over what amounted to maybe a few hundred words "for the long run." Too much energy spent over a tempest in a teapot. But even those consequences will get whittled away as time passes. We should be trying to edit "for the long run." Catching stories as they happen is not Wikipedia's strong suit, IMO. It's too bad we can't ignore them entirely for several months. A big waste of time and energy which might be better spent on articles which we actually know all the facts and argue only over how to present them, instead of breathlessly waiting for the tabloid press to deliver them and trying to make some encyclopedic sense our of it in real time. Student7 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

the biggest waste of time on wikipedia is dealing with anonymous IP vandals. if WP would just require an account to post, and drop this absurd, utopian 'anybody can edit' policy, about 80% of my daily effort on wikipedia would be mitigated, with great relief. this particular article had a very low rate of vandal edits, a typical rate of POV-pushing edits, and for the most part has remained a reasonable summary of a mildly notable political figure. we can't really ask for much more (or less) than that. Anastrophe (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

There have been several wholesale deletions of any mention of Allen's arrest and trials, so I'm bringing the issue here. I've already added one additional source for his arrest; I'll see what I can find to back up the rest of it, and remove any dubiously sourced information. What are everyone's thoughts about sources here? Dawn Bard (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone appears to be working on the article now but they also appeared to have commented out the part about the arrest inappropriately in my opinion. It is well-referenced by Fox News ironically enough. I'll wait until they finish to see what happens. It is not undue emphasis since it caused him to resign his political office. Drawn Some (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But at present, it is unbalanced. Sure, some of the content will remain, but content that is poorly sourced, for example, to "365gay.com", will be removed. Regardless of whether this "scandal" caused the politican in question to resign, this article still must abide by the BLP policy. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely BLP policy needs to be followed but what is needed is additional information and better sourcing, not deletion of pertinent information. Drawn Some (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek

Granted that if the story wasn't already told here, the appearance in Newsweek would make it necessary/notable. Having said that, is repeated information, regardless of source, useful, notable? I think if it is noted in dozens of nationwide publications after this, it is no more noteworthy. Additional appearances don't add anything. The article is still about Allen, not about Newsweek or other media. If Newsweek has added something new, their new observation can be included, as an observation. "It has been cited as an example of.....(ref-Newsweek)." That way, the emphasis is still on Allen/the incident, and not on "additional" publicity that adds nothing to the information already included here. Student7 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no section about his scandal and arrest?

I'm very surprised to find no section detailing this politician's scandal and arrest. Reading through the notes below, it sounds like this information was deleted by one or more users. Why? This is information that needs to be in the article.

Are Wikipedia users deleting information for political reasons? Is someone here pro-Allen, and trying to sanitize the man's article by minimizing mention of his scandal? Other Wiki articles with politician scandals provide a section detailing the scandal; this one barely mentions it, and provides no section describing it. I feel poorly-informed about this scandal, based on my reading of this article.

I submit that we add a section about the scandal, as is the case for analogous articles elsewhere in the encyclopedia.Chillowack (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110075613/http://www.pensitoreview.com/gop-adulterers-hall-of-fame/florida-state-rep-bob-allen/ to http://www.pensitoreview.com/gop-adulterers-hall-of-fame/florida-state-rep-bob-allen/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)