Talk:Travis Allen

Lock article

This article is being taken over by editors very biased in support of Allen. Given the amount of back and forth, editors removing sourced content negative of Allen, many blatant POV issues, and the upcoming elections, I'd like to propose locking the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A060:5D00:B175:C25A:1842:7676 (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

POV

I added the NPOV tag to this article. It seems to have been written by someone working for the article's subject. It was all only quite positive content about the subject. Subsequent to me adding the tag, another editor came in and added only negative content, which all appears sourced at least. I think this article is in need of some comprehensive review. - 2600:1700:A060:5D00:1185:55C8:8333:D14 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just did a bit of editing to try to fix the neutrality issue a bit. I agree there seems to be some issues here. - 2600:1700:A060:5D00:CD93:46FB:97FE:9651 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoring the RS about "false claims" is correct, but gives an UNDUE view. I've revised using a term used in the article. Allen's letter to the editor is not SPS because the Bee provides a WP:NEWSBLOG. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

New POV issues

Looks like a user "Jfrankparnell" just made several biased edits to this page. Removing sourced info and adding unsourced content favorable of the article's subject. I propose undoing all of the users edits and having a review of the article. Thoughts? -2600:1:C52B:1613:346D:9104:823C:96BA (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Late taxes? Correct name?

The sub-section on taxes has been revised and commented out, per BLP. The source show a "Travis E. Allen" on the tax lien, but the article says his middle initial is "J". – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Added Facts And Sources

Hello I added some extra facts and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press USA (talk • contribs) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with your recent edits. See below:

• The source you provide to http://truthabouttravis.com/ is poor and very WP:POV
• "who gave money to Gavin Newsom" - does not belong in the lead. The fact that he only gave $100 to Gavin Newsome makes this even less significant.
• "He also gave $250 in October of 2010 to Senator Barbra Boxer" - WP:UNDUE
• "And to top it all off he gave $1000 to Jerry Brown." - Again WP:UNDUE and editorializing. This is an encyclopedia not an attack page
• "Travis Allen has gotten paid $2,351 for not working" - How is this at all relevant?? WP:UNDUE
• "Travis Allen did not vote against bill to give illegal immigrants drivers license." - WP:UNDUE
• "Travis Allen supported Planned Parenthood 67% of the time as a State Assembly Member" - already mentioned in article.

Meatsgains^(talk) 02:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

They are all facts and all facts are needed in a dictionary. I agree this is not a attack page and I'm not attacking anyone i am giving people credible info. A 100 dollars is a lot of money and is significant why would he give money to someone he's running against. Your attacking the information. And the people of the USA by only giving the info that makes him look good. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and tell the people the truth. You can put info of the good things he has done. Their is already good info about him on it. But we need to tell the people the facts! This is relevant by telling the people what he is and what he's doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press USA (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Undo recent edits

I approve of making this article protected. There is an edit war going on. I'd like to request that an admin undo the last edits by users Soarin777~enwiki and Windbreaker1976. Both users only have history editing this one page. Soarin777~enwiki removed the "sexual harrasment allegations" section which has cited information and has been reported by several media outlets. I believe this should stay. Also, the user made edits to the "personal life" and "business career" sections that have no sources. They may well be true, but the only way the user could know they are true is if they are related to the article's subject. Meanwhile user Windbreaker1976 removed lots of information with sources without providing a reason (beyond the edit war over the article). This user has previously vandalized this page. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Undo Request

If the request to undo edits is considered and approved, the page needs to be returned to a state that it was in several months ago before biased information was added. User kylelovesyou has added many claims using opinion editorial articles published by news outlets as fact when they are clearly opinions of the author and not newsworthy. One such claim is the Stormy Daniels link from an LA Times article that calls Travis Allen "California's Trump". In that article, a simple search will return no results for even the name Stormy Daniels. He is clearly adding biased information but attempting to make it look sourced when it is not.

Windbreaker1976 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I actually disagree. The article several months ago had multiple NPOV violations and information without sources. The specific issue you mention though is somewhat of an issue however as the article does mention Travis Allen defending Donald Trump's sexual affairs, it does not mention Stormy Daniels specifically. Simply removing mention of her name but leaving the remaining content untouched would be preferable. - 2620:EB:C000:0:ADC7:F8B6:47B5:9BCF (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I cite one issue as an example. However if you dig through each of the articles for each of the claims that are trying to be noted as fact, they are opinion pieces.

2012 Assembly Race section is written in a biased way to highlight his trailing in the Primary to one of his opponents instead of highlighting what actually mattered in that race - that he won the general election as I wrote it.

On SB1, it is sourced again with opinion pieces, not fact pieces. Politifact is a person's opinion, so is the opinion piece written by the Sacramento Bee.

The section on the Environment, I agree needs to be sourced. I was restoring what was written by someone else and would challenge that person to source the position statement.

The 2nd Amendment/Gun Control statements should remain. They are sourced from specific votes made by the Assemblyman.

I still contend that the LA Times Article where Travis Allen is listed as "California's Trump" is not a valid source as it is an op-ed, not a news article. These claims can be cited if they can be sourced in other unbiased publications. The whole section is problematic making many claims and assertions that are clearly biased. As another example, there were no allegations in the plural - there was one allegation made, anonymously, that Travis Allen was counseled on his first year in the legislature. The record from the Capitol shows that it was closed with no action taken. If a claim was substantiated there would have been disciplinary action taken and/or a lawsuit brought. This never occurred. The single allegation is noted - not plural. Report the entire facts of the article, not your biased viewpoint. These are tired political games where a headline is sensationalized expecting one to only read the headline and not the article itself and draw an opinion.

The section on the candidate's campaign running constantly in debt is false. Anyone can go to the Secretary of State website and look at the campaign finance records. His campaign is funded and not showing a negative balance.

The section on Aaron Park should not be included as there is as of yet no resolution to the complaint. They are allegations with no proof of any actual wrongdoing established. It is again written in a way to sway an opinion. In America one is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. But statements like this are made to villify an individual before a ruling ever comes out.

I stand by my earlier statements on the polling results. If you want to start citing polls - cite them all, not just one that supports your narrative. The CAGOP vote was not a poll. That was a delegate endorsement vote and does not belong in a section on polling. It could be broken out into a different section perhaps.

The section on late income tax is again biased. It does not include the other parts of the article where Orange County Assessor Claude Parrish said small-dollar property tax liens like the one on Allen’s boat are very common. “This could happen to anybody,” he said. “Thousands of people have these liens, and quite often they don’t know it.” It also does not include the fact that as soon as he was notified of the liens, he paid the taxes.

Windbreaker1976 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please undo the edit by Windbreaker1976 (talk · contribs) which introduced unsourced content and deleted sourced content and RS. Windbreaker1976's edit was made shorty before full page protection was in place. Windbreaker1976 is an wp:SPA who only edits this article. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What edit do you want to be undone? Could you supply a diff? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Restored to the more fully sourced version. If disruption continues after protection expires I will consider just blocking any editor adding unsourced content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you at the very least review the sourced material and edit this section?

"Allen is considered by many to be a controversial[55][56][57] candidate for California governor due to his far-right populist politics, for being an outspoken proponent of Donald Trump,[58] for defending Donald Trump's alleged sexual affair with porn star Stormy Daniels,[59] for "substantiated" sexual harassment allegations made against Allen by a former coworker,[60] for making many false and misleading public statements,[61] for being "anti-immigrant",[62] and for conflicting views such as claiming to support reducing traffic on California's roads while opposing public transportation.[63]"

• The LA Times article makes no mention of Stormy Daniels. This is a giant leap.
• Sexual Harassment - there weren't "allegations" in the plural. It was one complaint as noted in the article. "Allen, who the documents show was given a verbal warning but not disciplined in 2013, was accused of sliding his foot over to touch a female employee, and coming up behind her in the cafeteria to squeeze her shoulders."
• Travis Allen is not "anti-immigrant" this is a constant fabrication seen in today's mainstream media of any conservative. He is anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.
• How can one cite Travis Allen's website and insert their opinion here that he is making conflicting statements? It's not even a news source. I didn't think campaign websites were consider valid sources as they are almost always biased in favor of the candidate."Travis introduced the Repeal the Gas Tax Initiative so Californians can vote to overturn Jerry Brown’s widely unpopular gas tax, and actually fix California’s roads and expand our highways with the money our state already has. Every year the average Californian spends up to 90 hours in traffic away from their families and their jobs. California has the revenues to fix traffic congestion. Let’s spend our existing tax revenue on desperately needed transportation infrastructure instead of California’s bloated government bureaucracy and high speed rail." - This is again biased.

Thank you for your consideration.

Windbreaker1976 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

Please use this talk page prior to editing the article for these issues to avoid edit warring. You have all received warning. Do not modify any of this disputed content without agreement here first. - Bobvillage (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2018

The statement "for defending Donald Trump's alleged sexual affair with porn star Stormy Daniels" is mentioned nowhere in the cited source (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-travis-allen-20180424-story.html) Batevolts1 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Political positions

Our coverage of some of Allen's positions seems problematic.

• "Allen has been rated very low by environmental organizations..." - I assume the 0% by the Sierra Club is the 2016 "Positions" score. The 2017 "Report card" score is much higher at 25%. Why not go with the newest rating?
• "... against legislation supporting state parks and beaches in California" - his rating by the California Park & Recreation Society is one of his best "Environment" ratings at 50%. Singling out his supposed lack of support for state parks doesn't seem appropriate in this context.
• Neither source in that sub-section is a third-party source providing context for the naked scores. Why choose those specific environment scores and not those by other organizations? Who says those ratings are "very low"? (Well, I'd agree the current ones are, but 25% or 50%?)
• One of the sources in the "Environtment" section doesn't mention Allen and should be removed.
• The first paragraph of the "Firearms" section looks like original synthesis from primary sources to me. How is it encyclopedic to go through his voting record and to list individual votes?
• Explaining why he got high rankings from Planned Parenthood in some years but not detailing the bills that gave him his low ratings in other years seems strange. For example, the 2017 rating is based on his voting against two budget acts, not on any specifically abortion-related votes. Why is it more relevant to explain which votes got him his rating in 2016 than to explain which ones got him his rating in 2017?

Unless there's a good reason to handle these positions in this way, I may go about fixing those issues in the next few days. Huon (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m with you on these changes. Firearms already got changed. Planned Parenthood is relevant though may need better wording (?). They don’t rate candidates just on abortion bills though everyone in political spheres associates them with abortion. They also rate on issues related to women’s health like the budget bill that would have gotten rid of taxes on feminine hygiene products was important to them. Windbreaker1976 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed Planned Parenthood does so. Yet we give their 0% ratings without an explanation or qualification in a section entitled "Abortion legislation" while we go to lengths to explain that the "good" ratings they have given aren't really abortion-related. That seems as if we're trying to "explain away" ratings such as 50% and 67% while giving the impression that the others indeed were for abortion legislation when they actually weren't, either. Huon (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we list out the other bills that Planned Parenthood rated on those years Allen got 0% to keep it non-biased? I’d can do that research without laundry listing it. It’s usually only a few bills each year. Or perhaps we put planned parenthood under women’s health legislation and the put his prolife stance elsewhere.Windbreaker1976 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Politifact as a source

Per wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 215, Politifact would appear to be a wp:RS. I don't see this removal by Windbreaker1976 as justified. Jim1138 (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Be very wary of Windbreaker1976's edits on this article. -2600:1700:A060:5D00:5826:5A64:135B:C165 (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m newish to this...I’ve edited some other articles in the past but not logged in. I’m open to anyone who wants to help me become a better wikipedian. This happens to be of interest to me right now and want to make sure I adhere to the NPOV guidelines so appreciate the feedback. I expect I’ll edit other pages in the future. Windbreaker1976 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

pov issues

Ok this section is a major POV violation: "Allen responded to the shooting of Stephon Clark during a debate on March 25, 2018 in San Diego. He was the only candidate for Governor at that time that stood up for law enforcement for acting appropriately and taking proper action when confronted with a potentially armed suspect." -2600:1700:A060:5D00:30FA:5165:7989:B747 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This article continually gets hijacked by right-wing extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A060:5D00:30FA:5165:7989:B747 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

-Yeah it's the GoogleMaps phenomenon. Take a look at the ratings of UC Berkeley on Google Maps to see an example in action. Or Reddit during the elections with The Donald sub. Right wingers are hijacking our democratic institutions, Wikipedia included. -2600:1:9A31:2707:A853:2D64:A428:C0A4 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Review and possible lock

This article is in need of a review and possibly needs to be locked again. User Maggie4TakeBackCA seems to be making a lot of biased edits and removing many cited information. _Kylelovesyou (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)