![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I am seeking other opinions on whether the info box designation should say Religion Jewish or Religion Judaism. The infobox now says "Religion Judaism". I think it should say "Religion Jewish", with a Wikilink link piped to Judaism. The religion itself of course, is called "Judaism" but the infobox is about an individual, Alan Grayson, and the grammatically correct way to designate his religion is "Jewish". Xenophrenic disagrees, and reverted my change. [1]
According to WP:Piping "Piped links are useful for preserving the grammatical structure and flow of a sentence when: the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context". This is clearly such an instance. Also the Washington Post has an identical infobox set up which simply states Grayson's religion is Jewish and not Judaism [2]. Finally here is a quote from Grayson himself where he says "I am Jewish". [3] So, the question is: should grammar, common usage, a reliable source publication and the individual's own self-characterization determine how his religion is stated (Jewish) in the infobox which contains personal information about Grayson, or we should we go with the very awkward designation of Grayson's religion as "Judaism" because it is the title of a Wikipedia article and the name of the system of beliefs. KeptSouth ( talk) 07:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is not an article about the Jewish religion, it is an article about an individual. Both the Washington Post and the Jewish Federations publications establish usage in a very specific and on-point way. This is a simple choice between following the uncited beliefs of an anonymous wikipedian or following the usage of reliable source publications.
Here are more profiles from the Washingoton Post, edited by various authors: Barbara Boxer; Jane Harman; Diane Feinstein; and Michael Bloomberg— all say Religion: Jewish, using a very similar profile format. The Jewish Federations of North America article not only states the religion two members of Congress, as Religion: Jewish, it also refers to Congression Quarterly as a source. [10]. In checking CQ's 2010 Guide to the New Congress, beginning on page 22, you can see that they say Religion: Jewish in their brief profiles. Note also that this is a standard way of describing any religion. In addition to Richard Blumenthal's religion being given as "Religion: Jewish", Chris Coon's is stated as "Religion:Presbyterian" and not as Religion:Presbyterianism or Religion:Christianity. Other profiles in succeeding pages use the same grammatical form. [11]
I have provided a lot of support. It is clear that the field should be changed to Religion: Jewish. This discussion is at an impasse as shown by its circular nature, and your evolving pattern of reverting changes based upon your personal beliefs or based on what other Wikipedia articles say. Therefore, I believe that an outside opinion is required, and I will be seeking a WP:Third Opinion. --Best Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 12:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've come in response to the 3O request.
The first thing I'd note is that the article doesn't currently contain a source for Grayson's religion. For it to be mentioned in the infobox at all, a source is needed. This source should make it clear that he is practising or that he describes himself as religious.
Assuming such a source can be found, then it seems like the question is about grammar and WP practice. I can't see that there is an established rule here. "Religion: Muslim" and "Religion: Islam" both seem equally acceptable to me. Likewise "Religion: Christian" and "Religion: Christianity", and so on. Xenophrenic's version does have the advantage of avoiding confusion between Jewish ethnicity and Jewish faith and practice. I spot-checked some American Jewish politicians: Joe Lieberman, Bella Abzug, Gary Ackerman, John Adler, Isaac Bacharach, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Sol Bloom. These all use "Judaism" in the infobox. I found a couple of others that did not include religion in the infobox, but none that listed the religion as "Jewish".
So, to summarise: "Judaism" appears to be preferable, but a source is needed in the first place, otherwise leave religion out of the infobox. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- GRAYSON: I would like them to know that the decisions that we make in Congress every day, at least from my point of view, are moral decisions. And what I am doing is I’m applying the moral education I received from my religion. ... I benefit tremendously every day in Congress from having had a religious education. I am happy that my five children all will have a religious education. The things that matter in life are not necessarily the things you learn in public school; they are not reading and writing and arithmetic, those are just tools. The things that matter the most are the things that teach you the right way to live. Certainly, I like the fact that my children learn that they should honor thy mother and father (chuckles). But you learn a lot more than that.
- PJV: Are they in [Jewish] day school?
- No, my kids go to Hebrew school with Chabbad. You learn a lot more than that. And I am very pleased that I had the chance growing up not just to learn a smattering of Hebrew or to learn the prayers or even to read the Bible, but to be able to have the conversations that I had and learn the things I learned about the right way to live and the right decisions to make when I got a Jewish education.
- At the time it seemed like a tremendous inconvenience [laughs]. I’m sure it may seem the same way to my own children. But it turned out in my everyday life today to be very important. When I get up and speak on behalf of children’s health, I’m not just talking about my own personal experience, but I’m talking about a 3,000 year experience that’s an experience about what it takes to create a just society. And originally it was Judaism that taught the world that a just society is one that shelters the homeless, that feeds the hungry and that heals the sick. So these are the things I think about every day when I try to do my job properly.
Summary - This disagreement concerned infoxbox usage, specifically whether stating Religion: Judaism was preferable to Religion:Jewish when referring to an individual. I believed "Religion:Jewish" was more grammatically correct citing the Washington Post and Congressional Quarterly's usage in their infobox-style summaries. Another Wikipedian disagreed arguing that the name of the religion is Judaism. I asked for a third opinion which was given by FormerIP who reviewed bios of Jewish persons on Wikipedia and said that Wikipedia usage of "Religion: Jewish" was preferable. I will go along with this consensus, and the matter should be closed. KeptSouth ( talk) 11:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Grayson tried to jail someone for simply making a critical web site about him. He write a letter to the attorney general of the U.S. asking him to do so. Why does this keep getting deleted?
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2010/20100618MUR.shtml
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Grayson_wants_to_imprison_critic.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/grayson-wants-critic-jailed-claiming-constituent
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/volusia_news/121809grayson-files-complaint-over-website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.235.36.252 ( talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the FEC website, Grayson wanted the sanctions due to allegations of election fraud. The complaint was not that the website was critical of him. That being said, there are sources here sufficient to warrant a mention. causa sui ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I answered this question in the article -- surprised that it was nowhere to be seen as late as February. It's newly-created 9th, designed for Hispanics but no Hispanic has tossed his/her name in yet. So the reference, *See main article* which directs one to some not-very-important (and outdated I think) material about the 8th, should be deleted. I'll do that soon, probably, as it seems this whole subject is being neglected. Mare Nostrum 07:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare Nostrum ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Both of you, Xenophrenic and Patientg need to stop edit warring. As far as I can tell, neither of your edits add any importance to the article, but both of you should discuss here why you feel your edits should be kept. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 18:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Why are Grayson's posts on Democraticundergound being deleted? Monty2 ( talk) 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe you are trying very hard to cover up for Grayson. You've attacked my personal page. And I believe that there is NPOV for quoting Grayson.
It is difficult to believe that you want to cover up his own words.
Monty2 (
talk)
08:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And I made it as clear as possible that it's his own quote. And I limited it to just his quote. Monty2 ( talk) 08:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm also going to chime in here and say it adds undue weight; politicians make several remarks, why should this quote, mentioned only once, on a website, be mentioned? Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 08:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe his quoted position as quoted is appropriate. How can it not be? It appears to be Grayson's own statements. It is sourced. I believe any edit wars are to hide his quotes at this point. I believe hiding these quotes are political in nature. Monty2 ( talk) 08:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You're covering for him. Deleting this link is a clear sign of it. It is his own words. Why hide them? It's a clear quote from him and it's appropriate. Monty2 ( talk) 09:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We'll put it here. Grayson's words: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251289718 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty2 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Had a Republican written a weird article on a rightwing forum it would be quoted at the top of the page, guaranteed. Monty2 ( talk) 20:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Additional information may be found in this Salon piece or this WSJ profile, but it appears to be redundant to existing sources. Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The "extremist views" regarding the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, might be because he owns stock within a Russian company. (Lukoil) Yet, no mention of this within the article. Is it justified to have this information here ? I can't do it. So, is there someone willing to ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.96.105 ( talk) 16:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Alan Grayson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alan Grayson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
How is there no mention of this? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/alan-graysons-double-life-congressman-and-hedge-fund-manager.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.224 ( talk) 20:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Grayson. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason why this should not be covered in the article. User:Xenophrenic has now repeatedly removed it. It's a major story about Grayson. If anything, it deserves more coverage, as it was the key reason that his Senate campaign collapsed. It is sourced to reliable sources, and was a major news story when it happened. john k ( talk) 16:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Grayson. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Alan_GraysonWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The info on the top right lists his current and previous spouse. The text mentions an earlier (third) spouse. Why isn't that listed on top? Like on Donald Trump's wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.163.149 ( talk) 20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Article seems to missing a big part of the story, the history of domestic abuse against his first wife. Police reports since 2005 i believe and basically what killed his political career. I may not be the most knowledgeable person on this... I can study up if needed. But its really missing a massive piece of this story. Just thought I point it out. Jp0d009 ( talk) 05:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I am seeking other opinions on whether the info box designation should say Religion Jewish or Religion Judaism. The infobox now says "Religion Judaism". I think it should say "Religion Jewish", with a Wikilink link piped to Judaism. The religion itself of course, is called "Judaism" but the infobox is about an individual, Alan Grayson, and the grammatically correct way to designate his religion is "Jewish". Xenophrenic disagrees, and reverted my change. [1]
According to WP:Piping "Piped links are useful for preserving the grammatical structure and flow of a sentence when: the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context". This is clearly such an instance. Also the Washington Post has an identical infobox set up which simply states Grayson's religion is Jewish and not Judaism [2]. Finally here is a quote from Grayson himself where he says "I am Jewish". [3] So, the question is: should grammar, common usage, a reliable source publication and the individual's own self-characterization determine how his religion is stated (Jewish) in the infobox which contains personal information about Grayson, or we should we go with the very awkward designation of Grayson's religion as "Judaism" because it is the title of a Wikipedia article and the name of the system of beliefs. KeptSouth ( talk) 07:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is not an article about the Jewish religion, it is an article about an individual. Both the Washington Post and the Jewish Federations publications establish usage in a very specific and on-point way. This is a simple choice between following the uncited beliefs of an anonymous wikipedian or following the usage of reliable source publications.
Here are more profiles from the Washingoton Post, edited by various authors: Barbara Boxer; Jane Harman; Diane Feinstein; and Michael Bloomberg— all say Religion: Jewish, using a very similar profile format. The Jewish Federations of North America article not only states the religion two members of Congress, as Religion: Jewish, it also refers to Congression Quarterly as a source. [10]. In checking CQ's 2010 Guide to the New Congress, beginning on page 22, you can see that they say Religion: Jewish in their brief profiles. Note also that this is a standard way of describing any religion. In addition to Richard Blumenthal's religion being given as "Religion: Jewish", Chris Coon's is stated as "Religion:Presbyterian" and not as Religion:Presbyterianism or Religion:Christianity. Other profiles in succeeding pages use the same grammatical form. [11]
I have provided a lot of support. It is clear that the field should be changed to Religion: Jewish. This discussion is at an impasse as shown by its circular nature, and your evolving pattern of reverting changes based upon your personal beliefs or based on what other Wikipedia articles say. Therefore, I believe that an outside opinion is required, and I will be seeking a WP:Third Opinion. --Best Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 12:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've come in response to the 3O request.
The first thing I'd note is that the article doesn't currently contain a source for Grayson's religion. For it to be mentioned in the infobox at all, a source is needed. This source should make it clear that he is practising or that he describes himself as religious.
Assuming such a source can be found, then it seems like the question is about grammar and WP practice. I can't see that there is an established rule here. "Religion: Muslim" and "Religion: Islam" both seem equally acceptable to me. Likewise "Religion: Christian" and "Religion: Christianity", and so on. Xenophrenic's version does have the advantage of avoiding confusion between Jewish ethnicity and Jewish faith and practice. I spot-checked some American Jewish politicians: Joe Lieberman, Bella Abzug, Gary Ackerman, John Adler, Isaac Bacharach, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Sol Bloom. These all use "Judaism" in the infobox. I found a couple of others that did not include religion in the infobox, but none that listed the religion as "Jewish".
So, to summarise: "Judaism" appears to be preferable, but a source is needed in the first place, otherwise leave religion out of the infobox. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- GRAYSON: I would like them to know that the decisions that we make in Congress every day, at least from my point of view, are moral decisions. And what I am doing is I’m applying the moral education I received from my religion. ... I benefit tremendously every day in Congress from having had a religious education. I am happy that my five children all will have a religious education. The things that matter in life are not necessarily the things you learn in public school; they are not reading and writing and arithmetic, those are just tools. The things that matter the most are the things that teach you the right way to live. Certainly, I like the fact that my children learn that they should honor thy mother and father (chuckles). But you learn a lot more than that.
- PJV: Are they in [Jewish] day school?
- No, my kids go to Hebrew school with Chabbad. You learn a lot more than that. And I am very pleased that I had the chance growing up not just to learn a smattering of Hebrew or to learn the prayers or even to read the Bible, but to be able to have the conversations that I had and learn the things I learned about the right way to live and the right decisions to make when I got a Jewish education.
- At the time it seemed like a tremendous inconvenience [laughs]. I’m sure it may seem the same way to my own children. But it turned out in my everyday life today to be very important. When I get up and speak on behalf of children’s health, I’m not just talking about my own personal experience, but I’m talking about a 3,000 year experience that’s an experience about what it takes to create a just society. And originally it was Judaism that taught the world that a just society is one that shelters the homeless, that feeds the hungry and that heals the sick. So these are the things I think about every day when I try to do my job properly.
Summary - This disagreement concerned infoxbox usage, specifically whether stating Religion: Judaism was preferable to Religion:Jewish when referring to an individual. I believed "Religion:Jewish" was more grammatically correct citing the Washington Post and Congressional Quarterly's usage in their infobox-style summaries. Another Wikipedian disagreed arguing that the name of the religion is Judaism. I asked for a third opinion which was given by FormerIP who reviewed bios of Jewish persons on Wikipedia and said that Wikipedia usage of "Religion: Jewish" was preferable. I will go along with this consensus, and the matter should be closed. KeptSouth ( talk) 11:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Grayson tried to jail someone for simply making a critical web site about him. He write a letter to the attorney general of the U.S. asking him to do so. Why does this keep getting deleted?
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2010/20100618MUR.shtml
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Grayson_wants_to_imprison_critic.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/grayson-wants-critic-jailed-claiming-constituent
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/volusia_news/121809grayson-files-complaint-over-website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.235.36.252 ( talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the FEC website, Grayson wanted the sanctions due to allegations of election fraud. The complaint was not that the website was critical of him. That being said, there are sources here sufficient to warrant a mention. causa sui ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I answered this question in the article -- surprised that it was nowhere to be seen as late as February. It's newly-created 9th, designed for Hispanics but no Hispanic has tossed his/her name in yet. So the reference, *See main article* which directs one to some not-very-important (and outdated I think) material about the 8th, should be deleted. I'll do that soon, probably, as it seems this whole subject is being neglected. Mare Nostrum 07:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare Nostrum ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Both of you, Xenophrenic and Patientg need to stop edit warring. As far as I can tell, neither of your edits add any importance to the article, but both of you should discuss here why you feel your edits should be kept. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 18:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Why are Grayson's posts on Democraticundergound being deleted? Monty2 ( talk) 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe you are trying very hard to cover up for Grayson. You've attacked my personal page. And I believe that there is NPOV for quoting Grayson.
It is difficult to believe that you want to cover up his own words.
Monty2 (
talk)
08:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And I made it as clear as possible that it's his own quote. And I limited it to just his quote. Monty2 ( talk) 08:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm also going to chime in here and say it adds undue weight; politicians make several remarks, why should this quote, mentioned only once, on a website, be mentioned? Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 08:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe his quoted position as quoted is appropriate. How can it not be? It appears to be Grayson's own statements. It is sourced. I believe any edit wars are to hide his quotes at this point. I believe hiding these quotes are political in nature. Monty2 ( talk) 08:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You're covering for him. Deleting this link is a clear sign of it. It is his own words. Why hide them? It's a clear quote from him and it's appropriate. Monty2 ( talk) 09:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We'll put it here. Grayson's words: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251289718 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty2 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Had a Republican written a weird article on a rightwing forum it would be quoted at the top of the page, guaranteed. Monty2 ( talk) 20:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Additional information may be found in this Salon piece or this WSJ profile, but it appears to be redundant to existing sources. Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The "extremist views" regarding the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, might be because he owns stock within a Russian company. (Lukoil) Yet, no mention of this within the article. Is it justified to have this information here ? I can't do it. So, is there someone willing to ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.96.105 ( talk) 16:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Alan Grayson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alan Grayson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
How is there no mention of this? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/alan-graysons-double-life-congressman-and-hedge-fund-manager.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.224 ( talk) 20:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Grayson. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason why this should not be covered in the article. User:Xenophrenic has now repeatedly removed it. It's a major story about Grayson. If anything, it deserves more coverage, as it was the key reason that his Senate campaign collapsed. It is sourced to reliable sources, and was a major news story when it happened. john k ( talk) 16:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Grayson. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Alan_GraysonWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The info on the top right lists his current and previous spouse. The text mentions an earlier (third) spouse. Why isn't that listed on top? Like on Donald Trump's wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.163.149 ( talk) 20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Article seems to missing a big part of the story, the history of domestic abuse against his first wife. Police reports since 2005 i believe and basically what killed his political career. I may not be the most knowledgeable person on this... I can study up if needed. But its really missing a massive piece of this story. Just thought I point it out. Jp0d009 ( talk) 05:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)