Jump to content

Talk:Alan Grayson/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Religion - seeking other opinions

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)

Will wait for discussion - if no comments, I will change the designation of Grayson's religion to "Jewish" in 2 days.KeptSouth (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You already know my concerns, and changing the grammatically correct infobox designation from a religion (Judaism) to a cultural identity (Jewish) would be inappropriate. In your link above where he says is Jewish, that indicates he is a Jew -- but the infobox is designed to indicate his religion, which is Judaism. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Yes, I am aware of your position -- you stated it when you reverted my changes--but as I said at the start, I am seeking other opinions. I believe you are incorrect about the ethnicity (or as you call it, cultural identity) vs. religion distinction. But that is another matter, and I do not want to sidetrack the discussion.
The issue here is what the infobox should say. You did not respond to my example from Who Runs Gov by the Washington Post. Their At A Glance sidebar is very similar to the WP infobox. Here it is again Grayson - Religion:Jewish.[4] Here are a few more examples for additional support: Debbie Wasserman Schultz [5]; Eric Cantor [6]; Joe Lieberman [7]; Bernie Sanders [8]. The Jewish Federation of North America should be an authority on usage in this circumstance. In this Jewish Federation of North America article, [9] brief profiles of Jared Polis and Grayson are given, with each saying Religion: Jewish. I have supported my case rather than just making assertions. Hopefully I will get some other peoples' opinions here that will be responsive to the points I have made and the references I have given.-KeptSouth (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)22:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard you say you were seeking other opinions, so I stayed quiet and awaited other responses. Then you modified your comment below, stating that you will "change the designation of Grayson's religion to 'Jewish'" if you didn't hear any other comments -- and that indicated to me that either you had forgotten that I had expressed a concern, or that you felt your opinion trumped mine and you were going to plod on regardless. Hence my reminder. And "cultural identity" isn't my term, it's from our Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't comment on your "Who Runs Government" site because I don't place a lot of weight on the choice of words made by primarily a single individual (Rachel), in her descriptions. As for your Jewish Federation article, do you see where they ask the congressmen, "As a newly elected Member of Congress, how do you think your Judaism and Jewish values will come to play when casting votes and setting your legislative agenda for this session of Congress?" Notice the distinction they make between Judaism (the Religion) and Jewish values in their question? That goes to the point I was making, as does the fact that Wikipedia redirects "Jewish" to the Judaism article, with a disambiguation header clearly stating:
This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jews.
The article on the religion is titled Judaism, because that is the correct name of the religion. If you are simply arguing that the term "Jewish" is sometimes used to describe a person's religion, as your examples above show, then you would be correct -- but it is more correct to use the correct name in an encyclopedia. I don't know enough about the subject to say with authority which term qualifies as "common usage", so I, too, am looking forward to more educated input on this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:02, 18 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)

As I received no input from a third person, and this discussion is thorough and at an impass, I have requested a Third Opinion. KeptSouth (talk) 12:55, 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)

FormerIP, so you too believe usage in other Wikipedia articles trumps multiple usages in 3 reliable source publications including the more than 10 examples I have given. It seems contrary to WP:RS to use Wikipedia as a source unto itself, but I asked for a third opinion, and I will go along with your determination. Thank you for reviewing the discussion above.
I agree that electful.com is not a reliable source and have removed it. It says under its "About Us" section that its information comes from its contributors, but it does not identify any of the contributors and gives no name or address under "Contact Us". It thus appears to be a wiki type source or a blog but not a reliable source, and in my view there is no place in a BLP for unreliable sourcing. KeptSouth (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Any of the sources above, or already in use in our article, that describe Grayson as practicing a religious faith as a Jewish man can be cited as a source that his religion is Judaism. As a politician in the public eye, there are plenty of candidacy "Bios" that make it clear (one example), as well as interviews in which he confirms that he is Jewish, and practices Judaism (another example). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think stronger sourcing than that would be good. It's not clear that electful.com is a reliable source, since it carries no information as to how it is compiled and we also need to be careful about WP:CIRCULAR. In the interview, he doesn't seem to explicitly say whether he is religious or not. --FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you re: electful.com. I can't agree with your conclusions about the interview. Am I misinterpreting the following as indicating that Grayson is religious?
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.
Xenophrenic (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes I think you're reading too much into that. Based on the fact that to be a US politician and not at least pretend to have faith is generally a bad idea, I strongly suspect that Grayson is religiously Jewish. But I'd cite myself as evidence. I'm an atheist, but I also received a moral education from my religion. Pedantic? Maybe, but our BLP policy and the fact that Googling isn't too difficult together mean that we should seek out a completely unambiguous source, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not know that it has to be so firmly and explicitly established that one practices a faith in order to state their religion in an infobox, but if that is the rule, then so far, I agree his faith has not been established by a cite to a reliable source, including the recently added Philadelphia Jewish Voice article. I will remove the religion designation, per WP:BLP policy on removing unsupported information, if I do not turn up a specific mention of his religiosity. This article on Grayson has been around for over three years, and since his practice of the religion has not been established yet, I doubt that I will turn anything up.
Grayson did say in effect that he is ethnically a Jew when he mentioned he had relatives who died in the Holocaust. He has been quoted as saying he is Jewish and feels he is part of the Jewish community. Taken together, all this definitely means Jewish ethnicity, so perhaps the infobox should state "ethnicity=Jewish", with references appended, of course.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

Another issue was pointed out by FormerIP who noted that Grayson's religion was not sourced in the infobox. A Jewish Voice interview was added but FormerIP believed it provided insufficient proof, and that an unambiguous source was needed. In the article, Grayson says, "And what I am doing [in Congress] is I'm applying the moral education I received from my religion". I found an additional source in which Grayson says he is a member of a local synagogue, and observes the holidays. I added the source to the infobox, and I believe this should be more than enough to settle the issue of whether he follows the Jewish faith.KeptSouth (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Critic's website

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://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/files/2009/12/Grayson-Holder-Complaint-121609-0013.pdf

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2009/12/grayson-wants-to-send-critic-to-jail-for-five-years.html

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)

I agree that it received enough coverage both locally and nationally to include it and it certainly is unusual. We already have a section for controversial things he said; why not add it there? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable sources covering the disposition of the request (I see only the primary FEC source)? And while sources reporting on the final outcome may indicate relevance, if we can locate any, the content doesn't require its own top-level header and POV wording of the reverted entry. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
What alternative do you suggest to a 'top level header'?
I definitely agree with you there. I was thinking 1-3 sentences and much more neutrally worded. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You would have to show that the story received extensive coverage in mainstream media, not just a single mention in a local paper that was picked up by right-wing blogs and talk-show hosts. TFD (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Review the sources again. This obviously did receive "extensive coverage in mainstream media". If you think Politico, NBC, and the AP are "right-wing", then you're left of Lenin.
Grayson received a "Jefferson Muzzle" from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression for the incident: [12] かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
There was also coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, and the Washington Times. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for spending the time to locate additional sources, Scapler. The Chronicle source is actually a page A-11 opinion piece, and the commentary blurb by *cough* Amanda Carpenter indicates to me that you probably reached the bottom of the barrel.  ;) Those are closer to the "echo-chamber" comments cautioned against by TFD above, rather than the "high quality sources" required by our WP:BLP policy. The two sources covering the Muzzle Awards do indeed mention Grayson's letter to the AG, and qualify as 'news' sources. Should we site those sources to convey here that Grayson made that Muzzle list for requesting an election fraud investigation? (Scapler has already added Grayson's name to the 'Jefferson Center' Wikipedia page mentioned above, so I assume that indicates Scapler's preference...) I see other notables have made the list; both presidents Bush, John Ashcroft, Janet Reno, Rudy Giuliani... but while they are listed on the "Jefferson Center" article, there is no mention of winning that award on the actual BLP pages for these individuals. Thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 29 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)

Are the useful idiots deleting references to Grayson's attempt to destroy the 1st amendment retarded, illiterate, or both? References like AP, NBC, the Seattle PI, Politico, and the San Francisco Chronicle are obviously not a "single mention in a local paper that was picked up by right-wing blogs and talk-show hosts".
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Grayson_wants_to_imprison_critic.html
http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=12302372
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-28/opinion/17461614_1_grayson-gop-health-care-plan-lobbyist
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011591830_apusmuzzleawards.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.8.239 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What District is he running in, in 2012?

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)

Images of Grayson

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)

No edit war here, Grammarxxx. Please read the one-word edit summary provided between the parenthesis immediately following the time/date stamp and my user name in the edit history (you can access it by clicking the tab located at the top of the page, between the "edit this page" and "watch" tabs) of the article in question, then get back to me if you require further clarification. You are also invited to review the brief related discussion initiated by Patientg on my User Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Internet forum posting

Why are Grayson's posts on Democraticundergound being deleted? Monty2 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a cherry picked quotation from a primary source (a posting on an Internet forum, presumably by Grayson himself but unknown for sure), being presented out of context on a WP:BLP to make some sort of point. Given your prior insertion of text using the words "Grayson openly mocked US policy and the concept of security clearance", your intentions here seem pretty clear. You've tried to insert this item five times now (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), so try to seek some consensus here on the Talk Page first before adding contested material like this again. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that Grayson's own words are needed on here. Can we say his own words are not needed? I'm putting it back now.Monty2 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I do not agree that his words are needed here in this fashion. Maybe if there were secondary sources in the media or noteworthy public drawing attention to his comments and commenting on them, pointing them out, interpreting them (and even criticizing them, or praising them; whatever). That's not the case. Stop putting it back in until some consensus is reached here on the article's Talk Page, and take note this is a WP:BLP. You've now clearly broken the 3RR rule by making four reverts in less than 24 hours (1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th) and you've inserted this seven times now, ignoring the fact that other editors have reverted it. Any further re-insertions without working out the details with editors who oppose the insertion here first is further prima facie edit warring, so please just stop before this gets reported to a noticeboard, okay? Make your argument for its inclusion here, and wait for others to comment. If opposition is withdrawn and/or other editors show up and express support, you can proceed to re-insert it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 07:31, 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)

And I will remind everyone that reverting edits 3 times or more in a 24 hour period is considered edit warring and parties could face blocking if it continues. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 08:38, 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 completely just ignored everything I just said, so I'll be blunt, just because he said it doesn't make it notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. And don't act so innocent, edit warring falls upon all who revert 3 times, no matter the reason. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 08:57, 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)

  • Wow. He wrote a humor article. Why, exactly, does this belong in the article? You haven't provided any justification for its inclusion in the encyclopedia other than "He said it". I imagine he's said lots of other things too. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:29, 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)

No, it would be removed for the same reasons. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
BS Monty2 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
BS, huh? Well, perhaps you'd like to show us a Wikipedia article on any Republican politician where something like that is on their biography. Find us one with a cherry picked quote from a primary source with no secondary sourcing, and you'll prove us all wrong, "guaranteed". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK no elected Republican has made such ridiculous statements as this on a public forum with their own name. If so, it should be on their page. You can't get a more NPOV than a link to their actual statements. Monty2 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you think that it really "should be on their page" (despite what other editors here are saying) and some sort of inappropriate cover-up is going on here, perhaps you should report this at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. The moderators and editors there have lots of experience with these sorts of situations. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

IDT Corp

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)

Alan Grayson, Russian investment

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Also a hedge fund manager

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)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Is there encyclopedic content you feel should be added? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:48, 12 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).

  • 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) 06:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Abuse allegations

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)

Please come back when the allegations, which come from someone in a marriage annulment proceeding - and just weeks before an election - (two major red flags you seem to ignore) are something more than mere allegations. If and when that happens, we can then consider adding an encyclopedic and NPOV entry in this article - and certainly not just one side of the allegation-fest, as was already recently attempted. Please remember that this is a biography of a living person and not a tabloid. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

1st spouse not listed

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)

Spousal Abuse

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Grayson/Archive_3&oldid=1199201151"