Jump to content

Talk:Keith Ellison/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Muslim causes

One should note that support for Muslim causes should be understood (at least what can be inferred from the citations given, such as those referring the six imams removed from the US Airwayy fight) for support for issues affecting Muslims in the United States and in the Twin Cities area in particular (which has a large number of Somali immigrants in his district).--CSTAR 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we change to advocacy for Muslims in the US? I guess that would be more descriptive of his current work, but it might be original researchy. In any case, I think it would be fine to say that. Elizmr 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "advocacy" hope you don't disagree. Elizmr 01:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Advocacy seems a little stronger than what seemed to me supported by the citations, but I won't object. It's a judgment call; moreover misperceptions will always occur, regardless of phrasing, due to imprecision of language.--CSTAR 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Elizmr 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who left opinions for the Request for comments

Thanks to everyone who left comments concerning the placement of the Nation of Islam segment in this article. Consensus felt it should be in a "Controversies" segment instead of "Controversies during the election 2006" and currently that's how the page is formatted. Thanks for your input to all who participated.Wowaconia 17:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going along with the consensus on this. Elizmr 06:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

jihadi chat rooms

There was an objection to calling this segment "SITE monitoring" so I left the title. I included more info on SITE Institute as there was a question of what motivated them. As they are a tax-exempt they can't charge for there servies as per US tax law. As America is at war with terrorists networks and not just Bin Laden I think the line “two jihadi chat rooms…One chat room, called Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network…Many Al Qaeda communiques first appeared on the site” is crucial to the segment and should not be removed. There has been a question of the notablility of this information, I would argue that since those posting on these chat rooms (whom the FBI and the Dept. of Defense would like to kill or imprison and interrogate) are following the fatwa to "Kill Americans Everywhere" the fact that they are talking about a specific individual by name is significant. A further argument is that by all other accounts Ellison (a freshmen member of the 435 seat House) should be totally obscure to everyone outside the US and normally would be obscure to everyone outside of Minnesota, you don't see them talking about how they dislike freshmen Rep. Michele Bachmann(R-MN).Wowaconia 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:There has been a question of the notablility of this information,
I wasn't aware there was such a question. I realize there was some disagreement about the title. However, I'm fine the current title (or the previous one).--CSTAR 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
New problems with this section since recent revisons:
  • I feel there is too much description of the SITE institute, which has its own Wiki article. We should say something more brief and Wikilink. Here's what is there now: "The SITE Institute is a (“a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization” [79] that “Through continuous and intensive examination of extremist websites, public records, and international media reports, as well as through undercover work on both sides of the Atlantic”[80] “provides information related to terrorist networks to the government, news media, and general public.”[79]. The institute was cited in a story by The New York Daily News". That is a lot to say about SITE on ellison's page. Also note that the SITE institutes page does not present this study at all, it is just reported on in a very short piece in the NY Daily News.
  • the wikipedia article now refers to two sets of comments, one from chat room participants and the second from "pundits" My reading of the Daily News article is that ALL of the quoted comments were from chat room participants rather than some being from pundits and other belonging to chat room participants. Please note that these terms are in no way equivalent
  • The newspaper where this was reported is first listed correctly as the NY Daily News and later as the "Times". This is just a slip of the pen that needs to be corrected.
  • The UPI intenational ref is a direct reprint of the Daily News article. I don't think we need both refs here.
  • Here is the previously written section, which I believe is a more accurate representation of the NY Daily News article and does not contain the above problems. I suggest that we revert to this version: "After the 2006 election, the SITE Institute monitored Jihadist chat rooms to see if participants there were commenting on Ellision or his election victory. According to SITE, participants in two chat rooms commented on Ellison. Chat rooms monitored by the institute include “Al-Hesbah", which has ties to Bin Laden. Participants called Ellsion, "the first Jewish Muslim that goes to Congress", a "fool" trying to "deceive us," and "one of them, [a] one-way ticket to Hell." Another characterized the election as "a comedy". One said, "My God, if you have 1 billion Muslims like him, we shall [continue to] fight you as the Muslim fights the infidel." The New York Daily News, which reported on the story, quoted the reaction from Ellison's spokesperson, "Why would Al Qaeda embrace Keith's success? He's the opposite of what they're about."[76]"
  • In additon, this previous version places the context as perielection, preserves more of the relevant content from the Daily News article, while avoiding any distortion. Elizmr 06:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The word Times was a slip, I changed it. The use of "jihadi pundits" and "jihadist chat rooms" are quotes from the story, I don't really care for the use of "jihadi pundits" as no media pundit I know is advocating mass violence versus the innocent so I would prefer to use "terrorist supporters" or "terrorist sympathizers" which are more familiar terms. As it seems that its not just me whose confused by this word choice, I think changing it would be clearer. I think the full description of Al-Hesbah provided in the article is necessary because it furthers notability: "One chat room, called Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network…Many Al Qaeda communiques first appeared on the site” is preferable to "Al-Hesbah", which has ties to Bin Laden."Wowaconia 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, you're right about the pundits thing. Please accept my apology. Basically this is a very BRIEF Daily News article and doesn't really have all that much information about what exactly SITE was looking at. It sounded like chat rooms, but pundits make it sound more like they were monitoring talk shows, talk radio, etc. I wish we could see the SITE report since that would be really helpful. It is not on their Web site however.
  • Could we put the sentence into sentence I wrote in for context and clarity: "After the 2006 election, the SITE Institute monitored Jihadist chat rooms to see if participants there were commenting on Ellision or his election victory"?
  • A web site tied to the democratic party recently had some comments supporting David Duke. Does this mean that the Dems support David Duke? I don't think so. Could we say, "Chat rooms monitored by the institute include “Al-Hesbah", which the Daily News says is "solidly tied" to Bin Laden"??Elizmr 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As per your comment I put in “found posts about Ellison soon after his 2006 victory” in the segment (when I cut down on the info on SITE as per your suggestion). If it does not seem prominent in the segment it could be moved to the beginning. The Daily News says Al-Hesbah is connected to "Bin Laden’s network" not solidly tied to Bin Laden himself so we shouldn’t imply that to avoid OR. If you want to use the phrase “Al-Hesbah", which the Daily News says is "solidly tied" to Bin Laden", the word "says" implies that this is just their opinion, but it can be seen at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20527440.htm that Reuters also states it as a fact that Al-Hesbah is connected to al Qaeda...

(emphasis added) “An Islamist Web site used by militant groups including al Qaeda urged Muslims on Wednesday to seek the release of a cleric jailed in the United States through ‘any form of attempt or pressure’. Al-Hesbah Network also warned Washington that it would be held responsible for any harm that came to Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Muslim cleric imprisoned for conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks.”--Wowaconia 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I merged your ideas and mine into one section. Please note that I didn't remove any of your stuff. I rewrote some of the sentences for clarity. Elizmr 20:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) (note: lead with the daily news and the perielection timing to frame the situation, let the description of SITE (do we really need two cites for SITE since we have a wikitag???) come second to this becuase they don't even report on this on their web page. All the cited material is from the DN reporting on a SITE communique we don't have access to. Elizmr 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "they characterized as" implies that the information about Al-Hesbah's ties to the Al-Queda network is their opinion and not an established fact (see above post quoting Reuters). Changing "they characterized" to "is" will clarify this.--Wowaconia 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Representative vs. Representative-elect

At some point we may have to retitle the Prager segment and move it to the "Controversies" header as now Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) is opposing Ellison's use of the Quran. Its no longer pundit vs Legislator, but incoming freshmen Democrat Representative being oppossed for following religious dictates by 5th-term Republican Representative.Wowaconia 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I had noted that Rep. Goode reacted to the furor about the Ellison oath, original objected to by Prager in the same segment talking about Prager and it was deleted by this edit by user "Folksong" on 01:01, 21 December 2006 the history tag said (→Dennis Prager, KRLA - I thought this was Prager's section.. why is Goode's xenophobic statement below it?). Prager has stressed his lack of Islamaphobia in his past so it seems like a fair critique for someone to object to Goode being mentioned in the same section, but its certainly notable that Ellison is being attacked by another Representative. So I'm going to move it to the "Controversies" segment.Wowaconia 03:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok with me, but can we keep all of the 'oath on the koran" stuff together in one place in the article? We could get rid of media commentators on ellison and put all of that stuff in controversies. Elizmr 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New info in 84th legislative session section

This paragraph seems to detail a conroversy around the election rather than Ellison's achievements and positions during the session. Is it really necessary content for this article? "In his 2004 bid for re-election his opponent Jay Cyril Mastrud brought a complaint the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging Ellison’s campaign website “does not contain a disclaimer in the form required by the statute” and that invitations to Ellison’s “Second Saturday” public meetings in District 58b should also be considered campaign material and also “does not contain a disclaimer”.[1] At the hearing it was detemined that no probable casue existed as the website “prominently included the name and address of Respondent’s committee…[though] it did not, until the last few days, contain the words, ‘Prepared and paid for by…’” and that “The flyer distributed by Respondent inviting the public to constituent meetings during the past legislative session at which Respondent and another legislator reported on legislative activities, and that was paid for by the House of Representatives, was not ‘campaign material’”.[2]" Elizmr 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This stuff seems to have arisen because of a lack of attention to detail in the Ellison camp, the court said there wasn't enough for the case to go forward, but the whole thing wouldn't have come up if common practice would've been followed. I'm not sure if its not notable or if its part of some behavior pattern along with the late filings and parking tickets.Wowaconia 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree, however, that it is not really in keeping with the other information in the sections--ie positions and achievements? It would seem to be a controversy, and could be listed below with those if considered notable enough. Elizmr 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon consideration of your points, I concluded that it was not suitably notable and deleted the information from the article.--Wowaconia 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ellison is a Sunni, is there confusion or vandalism?

The post titled 00:52, 22 December 2006 68.69.51.167 (Talk) (religious views) changed Ellison's religous views in the call-out box from Sunni Islam to Nation of Islam. I'll change it back to Sunni but do you think the article is unclear that he is not a member of the NOI or do you think this was vandalism?Wowaconia 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably vandalism, I've haven't heard of Ellison being a member of the NoI. GoodDay 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

On non-payment of fines and taxes

An un-logged user removed the info on his non-payment of fines and taxes without discussion. This should not be done so causually. This was important during the election and since he has yet to take office I don't see the reason for taking it out now. If one believes it to be too trivial for permanent representation here, and that arguement becomes the consensus then it should be moved to the page about the 2006 election for the fifth district seat.--Wowaconia 06:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions of other (foreign) Muslims?

Many of Ellison's political objectives appear inconsistent with islamic law - in particular his opposition to a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman. As homosexual acts are illegal in every predominantly muslim country, I imagine they haven't even gotten around to the issue of gay marriage - yet, one would think this is the kind of stuff that turns most muslims against the US. Are there any international muslim organizations that have said anything about this guy? -71.167.196.143

While I know you asked about international muslim organizations, as most American Muslims are generally more socially conservative than Ellison, perhaps this may offer some insight. I found this from an Associated Press article on http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/08/america/NA_POL_US_Election_Muslim.php “Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society, compared an Ellison victory to Edward Brooke's election in 1966 as the first black senator since the 1870s. He said Muslims followed the campaign closely, and that they are more excited about seeing a Muslim in Congress than they are concerned about Ellison's strong liberal views. "We are monotheistic, but we are not monolithic. There are things within our own community that we disagree about," he said. Ellison's views "might be a concern but I think the overall factor of having a Muslim voice in Congress overrides those types of concerns." --Wowaconia 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally American-Muslims backed the republican party because of their stance on social issues, including questions on gay rights and abortion. This can be seen in the 2000 election of Saghir "Saggy" Tahir, to quote his wiki-page “According to (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) CAIR 78% of Muslims voted Republican in 2000...because many American Muslims say they share the same social values as the Republicans.” But as of 2006 “A pre-election CAIR survey revealed that 42 percent Muslim voters consider themselves members of the Democratic Party while only 17 per cent are Republican.” Polls indicate this is because they “strongly oppose the war in Iraq” and have a “deep disaffection with the Bush administration”. Its got refs there if you’d like to check the info.--Wowaconia 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Another source on the same: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1558227,00.html “Muslim Americans in Minnesota and throughout the nation have been forging a coalition with liberals on issues like those articulated by Congressman-elect Ellison — universal health insurance, tougher environmental regulation, opposition to the Patriot Act and an immediate end to the war in Iraq. Just a few years ago such a coalition would have been unthinkable. In 2000, Muslim American leaders overcame their reluctance to get involved in politics and, almost unanimously, endorsed George Bush for President. For the most part well educated and affluent, Muslim Americans went along with Bush's low-tax, limited government philosophy and enthusiastically embraced his conservative social agenda — especially Bush's pro-life and anti-gay rights stance. But since 9/11, all this has changed. Now secular liberals and culturally conservative Muslims are united in their intense opposition to Bush's policies at home and abroad, especially in the Middle East. …For immigrant-origin Muslims, African Americans' long-standing concern with civil rights suddenly has a relevance it previously lacked. And now, Muslims from places like Pakistan or Egypt, who might in the past have avoided politics, see the need for allies and guides through the unfamiliar American political landscape. Still, immigrant Muslims remain devout social conservatives. And in Minneapolis in the days leading up to the celebration Tuesday night, one could hear many of them trying to reconcile their support for Ellison and other liberals on Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor ticket with their unrelenting opposition to abortion and especially homosexuality. It is clearly not easy for them to do so, but as one Muslim American leader born in Afghanistan put it, "the majority of Muslims weigh the alternatives" — and vote against President Bush and the Republicans.”--Wowaconia 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions similar incidents in Britain. Found at http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1785_0_25_0_C “But what does this say about the Muslim electorate? Chances are, if Muslims saw another candidate with Ellison's stands on gay rights, abortion, and his suspiciously boiler plate platform on Israel, Iran, and the Middle East, they would not support him. Yet Ellison has the admiration of his Muslim constituents in the same way that a Muslim girl, Hammasa Kohistani, was spared much grief after her selection as Miss England, or that Yusuf Islam [once known as Cat Stevens] is confident enough to venture back into pop music. In other words, the notoriety supercedes the reservations. Beyond this, Muslims in the west should realize that they are seeing the face of future generations take shape, generations that might adopt cultural and political values that aren't necessarily the same as their forebearers or against Islam as they choose to practice it. Politically speaking, issues like equal rights for gays within a pluralistic society make sense when Muslims demand the same equal protection (the Muslim Council of Britain, who clashed with gays earlier this year, should take note).”

Why are inflammatory quranic verses listed????

Why are select Quranic verses listed on this page? What do they have to do with Rep Keith Ellison? I am sure we can find some pretty inflammatory rhetoric in all the 'holy books'. Osabek 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

These appear to be the work of a single vandal who according to the history page placed the same quotes on 21:27, 26 December 2006 84.146.209.79 and then again on 18:00, 27 December 2006 84.146.253.115.--Wowaconia 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wowaconia, I went ahead and removed it... I am pretty new to the wikipedia community, did I follow proper procedure? Osabek 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Osabek, it was vandalism as it had no context to Ellison. When I bothered to track down who was posting these things I found that they first came from a blog, which is not a credible source for a wiki-page, even if it would have claimed to have some connection to this article.--Wowaconia 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the "Tracking recent slanderous vandalism" segment below.--Wowaconia 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing for length

Hello, I'm new here and I noticed that a) the article was nearly 60k long (thus breaking the Wiki rule for article length) and b) much of that length was taken up by lengthy cites that needed to be summarized and put into context, as most of them were politically motivated (citing them was fine, so long as there wasn't any pretense that these were impartial sources). Here's my last edit, which was done to fix that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Ellison_%28politician%29&oldid=97149798 CC2006 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will note that your last edit completely removed the entire short section detailing well-cited facts that Ellison did not pay taxes for several years. You also removed all mention of campaign finance violations, other legal troubles, and fines. These are part of the man's life, and they need to stay as part of a balanced biography. I object to any whitewash. Jonathunder 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to take out that particular section, Jonathunder. I will note that many of the alleged legal troubles mentioned turned out to be a lot less than they appeared (if you'll study the previous edit history of this page, you'll note that at least one person tried to post a bogus rape allegation against Ellison) and that other local politicians have had similar if not worse troubles, yet have not had them publicized so extensively; for instance, Alan Fine, Ellison's GOP opponent, had a domestic violence assault arrest and other charges against him expunged from his own record (the original StarTribune URL was at http://www.startribune.com/587/story/727029.html, but it's gone behind the pay wall; significant portions thereof are quoted here: http://www.mngopwatch.com/archives/2006/10/542/).

And I also think that it's fair to note that the sources for much if not most of the information that I tried to condense in the "Controversies" section are a) not exactly non-partisan and b) willing to go to great lengths to conceal just who they are and what could be motivating them. Big case in point: Michael "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" Brodkorb, who is one of the most-cited sources in the previous versions of this webpage, had tried for many months to hide not just his authorship of MDE, but the fact that he was being paid by both the Mark Kennedy AND the Michele Bachmann campaigns for 'research' (that is, 'opposition research' -- aka mudslinging) among other things (http://minnesotapublius.com/2006/09/26/mnpublius-exclusive-michael-brodkorb-on-the-bachmann-campaign-payroll/).

You would have had to have lived in Minnesota to understand the sheer level of nastiness being flung at the man -- nastiness to which, thank goodness, he did not respond in kind. Read this CityPages article to get a handle on just how outrageous was and is the abuse he got, from Republicans and from a few opportunistic Democrats as well: http://www.citypages.com/databank/27/1343/article14661.asp CC2006 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do live in Minnesota, though not in the Fifth District, and I do read Twin Cities newspapers often. I know what was removed in those edits was quite well sourced, so we will leave them in the article and let the reader make up her own mind, rather than try to lump every criticism of the man with the least supported allegations. Jonathunder 20:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Recentism

I suggest that the editors of this page read Wikipedia:Recentism. This article does not do a good job of providing a long term view and instead lists out random tangential items like "Comments on Ellison from Jihadist chat rooms". - Ravedave (Adopt a State) 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors of the Star Tribune newspaper are also invited to provide a long term view of Keith Ellison. (SEWilco 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

The article on recentism talks about recent events dominating a whole page and that they should be moved to a sub-page - this is what we did for Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress. The recentism essay (which isn't even a wiki-guideline) worries about that "articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens" an example it lists is "Long passages in an NBA basketball player's biography or an actress's biography may be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy whose text exceeds the number of words in the rest of the article combined." This was happening here in the past over the Quran Oath Controversy but this was cleared up by moving that to its own sub-page. Where now do you see recentism happening in this Ellison article? You mention one segment which is one paragraph long and charge the whole article as being recentism? I suggest Ravedave that you go to Wikipedia:Recentism and reread the essay.--Wowaconia 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just whinging. Ignore it. Anyway, another matter: the article at Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress does a good job of explaining what a "reenactment ceremony" is, but this article just mentions it without any explanation. Confusing. — coelacan talk — 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I changed it to reflect more clearly that it was a reenacment as per your suggestion.--Wowaconia 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on archiving.

As there were no ongoing debates and the page was getting long, I archived the last disscussion page.--Wowaconia 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keith Ellison not John Randolph of Roanoke is the first Muslim elected to Congress

The claim that Keith Ellison is not the first Muslim in the Federal Congress is put forward by only one person the self-proclaimed historian David Barton see this discussion on his source for the claim at http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2007/01/14.html . All accredited historians, agree as does the Official historian to the US House of Reps that Ellison is the first Muslim elected to the federal congress. John Randolph of Roanoke as a boy rooting for Muslims in stories about the Crusades is not the same as actually being a Muslim. In most places in America in 1799 (when Randolph was elected) you couldn't get elected to Congress if you were a Roman Catholic which is a lot closer to Protestant than Islam. See this article by a history professor on the need for those who ratified the Constitution in 1788 to address the concerns of Protestant Reverends that the lack of a religious test to hold office would allow Catholics and Muslims to join the Govt. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16359671.htm Barton's claim that John Randolph of Roanoke was elected as a Muslim just eleven years after this heated debate seems typical of his shoddy scholarship.

--Wowaconia 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Barton's quoted source for his claim is The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (vol. II) by Hugh A. Garland. The book does exist, see here and here, and I was able to access a ten-page excerpt through JSTOR that was reprinted in the William & Mary Quarterly in 1915. The excerpt concerns Randolph's school days and unfortunately does not include the page cited by Barton (p. 102) -- it makes no mention of any religion.

There seems to be ample evidence to doubt Barton's claim about Randolph, as mentioned above, but to be rigorous and to forestall an edit war, does anyone have access to Garland's biography? (Perhaps I should ask this on Randolph's page too.)

Three white leopards 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Try Google Books, I've been looking into it and it seems John Randolph of Roanoke had many stages of depression and questioning his own worth and was deeply troubled that people claiming to be Christians could still be greedy or violent. It appears he had a long period where he would not participate in the Christian rite of the Lord's Supper as he felt himself unworthy to partake in it.

There is no mention of him doing any of the things Islam requires of converts.
Here is what is required to convert to Islam according to http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/islam_conversion_main.htm

A person becomes a Muslim upon pronouncing the shahadah ["Ash HaduAllaa Ilaaha Il-lallaah Wa Ash Hadu Anna Muhammadar Rasullulah" which translates into "I bear Witness that there is no deity but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad if His Messenger" but must be said in Arabic] in front of two adult Muslim witnesses. A Muslim has to do the daily prayers, fast in Ramadan and apply the teachings of Islam in his daily life. But if a revert is unable to do all the prayers immediately after his conversion, he should try to do those he could. However, he should aim to be a practicing Muslim as soon as possible in order not to miss out in the race to accumulate blessings.

So far I haven't even seen any source claiming he owned a Quran.
--Wowaconia 05:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica only mentions this about his religion:

"Both his religious and his political views were radical and extreme. At an early period he imbibed deistical opinions, which he promulgated with eagerness."

There is a note:

"The best biography is that by Henry Adams, John Randolph (Boston, 1882), in the "American Statesmen Series." There is also a biography, which, however, contains many inaccuracies, by Hugh A. Garland (2 vols., New York, 1851)."

I don't think I have either of those. (SEWilco 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC))


I hadn't thought to check Google Books, thanks! It has the book, but I believe is missing the cited section. Barton cites p. 102 in volume II (inconveniently, the Google Books version is in one volume). He also adds in his cite "to Dr. Brockenbrough," who appears on p. 22 in an unrelated letter, and on a p. 172 that the Google preview lacks.

I've discovered that it's at a library near me, though -- I'll take a look tomorrow. User:Jbjazz, is it reasonable to ask to defer to the official Congressional historical version for 24 hours, in the meantime?

Three white leopards 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article John Randolph of Roanoke does not mention his religion. It does mention heavy drinking. (SEWilco 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
Randolph's article has a link to the Congress bio. No mention of religion there. (SEWilco 05:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
True. When I said "the official Congressional historical version" I was referring (unclearly, sorry) to the positive statement by U.S. Senate historian Donald Ritchie that Ellison was the first (see, for example, here). -Three white leopards 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

John Randolph of Roanoke in his own words

Here are some quotes from "The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke" By Hugh A. Garland courtesy of Google books as the book is in the public domain. (I’ll probably copy this stuff for inclusion onto the John Randolph of Roanoke article). Note:These quotes taken from his Sept. 25, 1818 letter to Francis Scott Key.

It seems that as a youth Randolph was excited by the writers of the Enlightenment and felt that Christianity was hypocrisy - -

He wrote Dr. Brockenbrough, “Your imputing such sentiments to a heated imagination does not surprise me, who have been bred in the school of Hobbs and Bayle, and Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke, and Hume and Voltaire and Gibbon; who have cultivated the skeptical philosophy from my vain-glorious boyhood—I might also say childhood—and who have felt all that unutterable disgust which hypocrisy and cant and fanaticism never fail to excit in men of education and refinement, superadded to our natural repugnance to Christianity. I am not, even now, insensible to this impression; but as the excesses of her friends (real or pretended) can never alienate the votary of liberty from a free form of government, and enlist him under the banners of despotism, so neither can the cant of fanaticism, or hypocrisy, or of both (for so far from being incompatible, they are generally found united in the same character—may God in his mercy preserve and defend us from both) disgust the pious with true religion."
It is during this period that he reads about the Crusades and roots for the Muslims.
"Very early in life I imbibed an absurd prejudice in favor of Mahomedanism and its votaries. The crescent had a tailsmanic effect on my imagination, and I rejoiced in all its triumphs over the cross (which I despised) as I mourned over its defeats; and Mahomet II Himself did not more exult than I did, when the crescent was planted on the dome of St. Sophia, and the cathedral of the Constantines was converted into a Turkish mosque. To this very day I feel the effects of Peter Randolph’s Zanga on a temper naturally impatient of injury, but insatiably vindictive under insult."

His "conversion" that he talks about with Key is not from Islam to Christianity but from doubting Christian to fully convinced and participating Church member.

"Mine had been no sudden change of opinion. I can refer to a record, showing, on my part, a desire of more than nine years’ standing, to partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; although, for two-and-twenty years preceding, my feet had never crossed the threshold of the house of prayer. This desire I was restrained from indulging, by the fear of eating and drinking unrighteously. And although that fear hath been cast out by perfect love, I have never yet gone to the altar, neither have I been present at the performance of divine service, unless indeed I may so call my reading the liturgy of our church, and some chapters of the Bible to my poor Negroes on Sundays. Such passages as I think require it, and which I feel competent to explain, I comment upon—enforcing as far as possible, and dwelling upon, those texts especially that enjoin the indispensable accompaniment of a good lfe as the touchstone of the true faith. The Sermon from the Mount, and the Evangelists generally; the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, chap. vi.; the General Epistle of James, and the First Epistle of John; these are my chief texts."
--Wowaconia 06:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again. Were you able to access the cited letter to Dr. Brockenbrough on p. 172? I certainly don't think it's necessary in order to restore Ellison's "first Muslim" claim on the page (which I'll do shortly if nobody else has), but if we can find the exact passage that Barton cites and it isn't evidence for Randolph having been a Muslim, we can put the question to bed for all reasonable people. -Three white leopards 06:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for it.--Wowaconia 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the letter to Brockenbrough on p. 172, it does not mention anything about Islam at all. The reference to a Telemonian shield is to the Greek hero Ajax (mythology).

"From the same steamboat, Nautilus, he addressed the following note to Dr. Brockenbrough. “As I stepped into the Nautilus, a large packer from Washington, among which was yours inclosing ‘Uncle Nat’s’ letter, was put into my hands. The ‘Native of Virginia’ is indiscreet in covering too much ground. he ought to have darned and patched old Tom’s Mantle, and fought behind it as a Telemonian shield. Add to my P.S, in the address to my constituents, that letters, via New-York, to the care of the P. Master, will reach me. My address is, care of John & Wm. Gilliatt, London, until further notice. I am nearing the Amity. Farewell! farewell!!"
--Wowaconia 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems I have to thank you one more time! :) By the way, I've found a different version of the biography that is split into two volumes, and therefore can definitively state that the cited p. 102 contains only the "prejudice in favor of Mohamedanism" passage you quote above. That is the only citation given by Barton, and there is no way to infer from that that Randolph was Muslim. Time to put this one to bed. -Three white leopards 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

David Barton's claims are self-published and not up to wiki-standards

As the article by David Barton claiming that Ellison is not the first Muslim elected to congress is on http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/ellison.pdf and as if you go to there home page and click on “About Us” you will see listed under founder the following info “WallBuilders’ founder and president, David Barton, resides in Aledo, Texas (just west of Fort Worth)”

therefor this article is self-published and not up to the wiki-standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#SELF
(Emphasis added) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
--Wowaconia 06:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Did my last edit work correctly and its reason make sense? I think so, but I'm double-checking as I'm quite new at editing Wikipedia. -Three white leopards 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is claimed that this source is self-published. However, it is an organization and not an individual, so I don't know how it works that way. Wooyi 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

COI

I have placed a COI tag on the article because of Excessive length, which indicates either COI or vanity--his article is 5 times as long as almost all the other MN congressmen. This is comprised of:

  1. Excessive details on legislative activity during the 83rd session of the MN legislature
  2. Excessive quotations from speeches in congress
  3. Excessive quotes re Islamic causes
  4. The controversies section: I think Farrahan balanced, but too long; I find the NY News part trivial. The rest seems in proportion.
  5. The references. There are 128 cites, half by him. Even Michelle Bachmann has only 69 total. DGG 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


  • You seem to be using the wrong tag, if you think this article is Pro-Ellison than why are you using a tag that says “The creator or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article.” Aren’t you arguing the exact opposite?
  • I cleared the details about the 83rd session.
  • Why are you complaining about the number of references when the tag you are using says "If the creator of the page would like to keep it from being deleted, it should be re-written in neutral language, and should use independent, reliable, third-party sources to show that the subject is notable."
  • The whole question of the number of references is a moot issue see Wikipedia:Article size
"For stylistic purposes, only the main body prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose."
  • No MN legislators has had more controversy surrounding them and more national and international media attention than Ellison, they have smaller articles because they are less notable.
  • I personally agree that the Nation of Islam information is too long, but I don't touch it because I hate getting into month-long edit wars with the other editors who watch this page.
--Wowaconia 12:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The current photo looks horrendous, and in my view, un-Congressional. I suggest someone to find his official portrait. Wooyi 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a free photo from the public domain (which trumps fair use images) and its a headshot (the norm for politician pages in wiki) which is why its there currently. Everyday I've been going to his House website and clicking on the high-res photo link at http://ellison.house.gov/images/photo_hires.jpg

but so far there is nothing posted there :(
--Wowaconia 01:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They finally posted an official photo on his congressional website so I posted the photo from there. :)

--Wowaconia 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the segment "Point Of View On Important Issues" be deleted?

All the references to this segment are from his campaign literature. I think a list that just repeats campaign promises and positions isn't worthy of inclusion in this article but could be moved to the article about the 2006 election in MN's fifth district if its not there already. I think its preferrable to let his legistlative record show what positions he has, not campaign literature. For instance the reader knows he's for credit card reform because he has put forward a bill on it. If he has made notable speeches on his positions since the election those could be quoted instead of a mere list that repeats his 2006 election literature.

--Wowaconia 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Gang14 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, particularly if a replacement for each point already exists. With the exception that a contrary action probably requires mention of the campaign position. (SEWilco 06:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Agreed. The article is really long. It would be good to get rid of any extra fat. Bigglove 00:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

conversion details

Hi Ellisonites, could we get a cite on Ellison's conversion? It looks like his earlier history with Islam are with the Nation of Islam rather than a Sunni movement, but the text says he converted to Sunni. We need to tease this out with a ref here, or just say "Islam". Bigglove 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The refs you requested have been added. See especially ref from Newsweek entitled "I'm a Sunni Muslim". I placed the referrence in the article and for your convenience here's the link - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16474497/site/newsweek/page/0/

--Wowaconia 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Good to have the cite, which seems like a perfectly adequate one for this. He does contradict the record in terms of his NOI involvement, which is well documented elsewhere. Bigglove 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

9/11 hitler remarks

(discussion copied from Bigglove's talk page)

To User:Bigglove: Your edits are libelous, Ellison did not make any comment that would assign responsability of 9-11 to anyone other than Al Queda. Look at the quote from the Star Tribune: "The fact is that I'm not saying Sept. 11 was a U.S. plan, or anything like that". The comments about Cheney preceded his comments comparing the after effects of the fire to those of 9-11 and are upon the same theme in the same speech. I have noticed that you continue to try and rearrange segments to make it look as if Ellison said Bush is behind 9-11 but the references state the exact opposite and Wikipedia will not place itself in a position where it can be accussed of libel. We can quote notable figures that interprete his words in the same manner you are interpreting them, as has been done with the John Gibson quote. But your edits are not neutral and the series of phrases you have been suggesting for the segment title plainly accuses him of saying something he did not say, and are therefore unacceptable. Please stop unilaterally reverting the article to suit your opinion, you are coming close to violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.

--Wowaconia 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am really suprised at your comments, which are not reality-based in the least.
  1. 1. The article in Wikipedia can not and should not rehash the entire speech he gave. The section is about the CONTROVERSY and the CONTROVERSY is about the meat of the quote from Ellison that my edit led with. The cheney thing you keep putting up there is not really part of the controversy and does not belong in the lead to the paragraph.
  2. 2. I am leading with Ellision's own comments. It is in no way shape or form libelous to quote someone directly. What are you talking about?????????????????????
  3. 3. The edit then outlines the reaction to what Ellision said, in the words that were in the article previous to me touching it. Please if you have a problem with this track down whoever wrote it and discuss with them.
  4. 4. Finally, my edit order: quote, reaction, further comments. This is neutral. Your order: your interpretation, quote, Ellison's further comments, THEN reaction, is less neutral. My order is preferable.
  5. 5. We need to come up with a meaninful title that actually conveys the nature of the remarks that we can both be happy with. Yours have not fit the bill. You are not happy with my ideas. Please feel free to suggest something else.
  6. 6. I think that everyone is allowed to edit wikipedia and you've changed every single one of my edits back around to something else. Aren't you violating the same rule you are acusing me of violating?

Bigglove 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Bigglove 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comments: Look at what you wrote above:
"Ellison did not make any comment that would assign responsability of 9-11 to anyone other than Al Queda. Look at the quote from the Star Tribune: "The fact is that I'm not saying Sept. 11 was a U.S. plan, or anything like that".
Here is the ACTUAL quote, "The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you"
It is QUITE misleading to parse a quote as you have done. Bigglove 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Dear User:Bigglove, you keep asserting that his talk was about assigning responsability to 9-11 which it was not, it was about the after effects of 9-11. I've been undoing your edits because they are not true, and are not supported by anything within any of the references. Its not controversial to say as Ellison did that Bush is not behind 9-11, it is controversial to make the claim that Cheney and Bush are using tragedy to assume dictorial powers. The controversy is over him saying their exploiting 9-11 in a power grab likening it to Hitler exploiting the fire to grab power in Germany. Analogies with Hitler are always controversial. You keep inserting titles like "Comments on aftermath of and responsibility for 9/11" the only thing he said about responsibility for 9-11 was that Bush and the US govt. wasn't responsible. Pointing out that people will dismiss everything you have to say and think your a nut-ball if you believe otherwise is not the same as saying that is your own belief. What is not neutral about the title "Compares after effects of Reichstag fire to those of 9-11"? The media uses the word Reichstag fire in the majority of the titles referring to the incident, and the call to update the article made at edit 08:23, 18 July 2007 by User:Perspicacite said it needed to be updated for "Reichstag speech", so that is why I made it a point of referring to Reichstag fire in the title.
You keep taking issue with his quote where he says Cheney is acting like if he's running a dictatorship, the most famous dictatorship in recent times of course has been Hitler so it makes no sense to remove it as you did earlier or remove it from the order of Ellison's speech as you are doing now that I keep inserting it back in. The theme of Ellison's speech was accussing the Bush administration of grasping for dictatorship and its controversial because he goes too far by comparing Bush to the worst dictator in human history. Its always a mistake to use Nazi analogies because their the extreme end of the scale. Hitler rounded up and killed his political opponents after the fire, Bush has done nothing remotely that bad. Invoking the Reichstag was stupid because Hitler is so ghastly and grisly so anyone is rightfully insulted to be mentioned in any way alongside him.
The story was covered by a Star Tribune reporter why do you want to move his interview with the reporter after the speech way down at the end of the segment instead of when it happened?
I agreed with your edit that the link to the Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session where Ellison dealt with an aspect of Holocaust denial, should not be linked within his quote about his history against such people. I fail to understand why you keep deleting its mention in a "see also" tag.

--Wowaconia 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He certainly did mention 9/11, please see the actual quote from Ellison above. My most recent title, which no doubt you have reverted by now, says R fire AND 9/11, which really doesn't imply anything that he mentioned 9/11 which he did. The problem with your version is that it conveys your own original research interpretation of the speech. We should have more direct quotes, and less of the couching explanatory verbiage that you have added.
I have already explained why I moved his follow up comments. the further comments he made were in response to further questions and the uproar his comments caused. that is why they should come AFTER the discussion of the reaction. Your reasoning that everything from the same paper shoudl be in the same paragraph sequentially doesn't make much sense. I know you disagree, but you are not the only editor of this articleBigglove 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I wrote a compromise version, which I think is fair. Cheney comes first as you've defended reasonably. Then the rest of the remarks, the the reaction, then the Ellsion explanation. This is fair. Please consider leaving it. I also don't know why we need to know the geographical location of the talk. It is extra text that is just clutting up an already overly long article. This article needs a good copy edit to remove this kind of fat. Bigglove 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The compromise version is indeed acceptable, though I think a "see also" tag linking to an article when Ellison in the Minnesota House went after someone he accussed of Holocaust denial (Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session) makes sense at the end where his quote about going after holocaust deniers is. Some questioned whether he had made too big a deal about the comments. Please note I never undid your title Comments:Reichstag fire and 9/11.--Wowaconia 00:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you didn't undo that particiular thing. I am sorry I had assumed you would based on passed experience :=(. I do not think that the link belongs. The synthesis is your own OR. Bigglove 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation for this speech is not working when I try it. Here is the one I know about... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml. Could you please add this link or fix it? Thanks...

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I put the cite you supplied in. Bigglove 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment on the "Point of view on major issues" section

Am I wrong in thinking that this entry's Point of view on major issues section is the most thorough (and simple -perhaps even too simplistic) section of any entry on American politicians on Wikipedia? Prove me wrong.--Kitrus 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about all of Wikipedia, but it reads as like campaign literature to me as does a lot on this page. Bigglove 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks Tom. Bigglove 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And thanks to Wowaconia for removing the section from the article. I think it reads better now. Bigglove 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia category

It does not make sense to add this category to the end of the bio page - it does not explain just how Ellison and Islamophobia are connected. One could add the category to pages about events that Ellison was a part of i.e. the page on the Quran controversy or the Flying Immams, but to just slap it on the end of this page does not explain how it is connected to Ellison. If there was a category "Victims of Islamophobia" one might argue that the page could be placed there, but otherwise there is no context to how the category is connected to the first popularly elected Muslim to the US Federal government. Ellison himself has never claimed anything bad that has happened to him was out of others fear and hatred, just out of misunderstanding - so he has never used the term. Again, if it was called "Victims of Islamophobia" there would be some context, without context the reader is left wondering why the Muslim success story of Keith Ellison is an example of Islamophobia.--Wowaconia 13:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Victims of a prejudice are not included in categories but people famous for espousing prejudice are, Anne Frank is not listed in the category of anti-semitism but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is. Therefor including Ellison in the category of Islamophobia makes it look like he is espousing it.--Wowaconia 16:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is that even a category Gang14 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns, request for comment on associated article

See Talk:Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress#Requesting comments: Applicability of BLP & NPOV policy. <eleland/talkedits> 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill Sali controversy

This doesn't seem like it belongs on this page to me - it was really a controversy about Bill Sali, not Keith Ellison. In fact, Ellison wasn't even the main target of Sali's remarks: he was criticising the decision to allow a Hindu to lead the opening prayer of the Senate, and mentioned Ellison as an example of his point. I suggest moving this section to the Bill Sali article, as at the moment it looks like it was a controversy revolving around Keith Ellison, which isn't really the case. Terraxos (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Daily News & SITE Institute

Do we really need this section? I mean really some non-news in a newspaper about what some guys on an internet message board have said? That's scraping the barrel isn't it. Some Jihadis aren't happy with Ellison... so what? Should every senator, governor, president, judge of the US have a section of what their left wing, right wing, centrist, pro-war, anti-war segments of society think of them. I think not. Maybe we should put a section on George W Bush jnr about what liberal teenagers think of him, I've got a raft of disparaging quotes of what they think and would like to do with him, but then I don't think it's appropriate.

Seriously just delete this section, it's garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Beck Interview

The links for the Glenn Beck interview are all bad. They are either transcripts, require log in, or the articles in question do not exist any more. Can we get better sources or scrap the section per WP:BLP ? Bytebear (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fourth representative since 1943

The article says, “Ellison is only the fourth person to represent the district since 1943.” What's special about 1943? --Rob Kennedy (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rob, 1943 is when Rep. Walter Judd took office following the 1942 election. He was succeeded in 1963 by Donald Fraser, who was succeeded in 1979 by Martin Sabo, who was replaced in 2007 by Keith Ellison.76.24.237.160 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

I think we should start thinking about creating a seperate page for just these because frankly he is going to be a target the rest of his elected life. Just a thought. Gang14 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keith Ellison is a puppet for the Muslim brotherhood and he and his ilk plan to install sharia law in the U.S. they plan to take over our country like a cancer. He should be fired, stripped of his citizenship and all of his wealth then executed for treason!.

No need for a crystal ball, just edit what is presently in the article. (SEWilco 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Who's talking about a crystal ball I'm trying to make the article less congested. Gang14 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been my experience that if you shear off information for a sub-page you will soon have to be defending the existence of that sub-page from people calling it a POV fork and demanding it be deleted. --Wowaconia 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem then lol jk Gang14 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right section but here goes. I added the town hall controversy last night and saw someone had deleted it saying it was "not a notable event in the Congressman's life or career". I am not trying to simply slight the Congressman by posting it, it is simply a fact. One which I cited multiple references for, one even displaying video of the event. The reasoning that it must be gone due to it not being "notable" his highly ambiguous, as there are numerous pieces of information listed about him which could be said not to be notable, yet consistently remain untouched. I don't want to sound too out there, but it seems as though the ones allowed to remain are only ones that shine favorable light on him, or which are far to glaring to omit; this is clearly not the intent of an encyclopedia. The event I posted received national attention from numerous local and national media outlets, and did so for a considerably long period of time. In what way can this controversy not be regarded as significant, but his failure to pay traffic tickets, or his drivers license having been suspended is? Does the public not have a vested interest in knowing if one of their representatives asks for constituent questions, and than deems them "unacceptable" and proceeds to flagrantly disregard them? If someone could explain the rational behind this, other than simple bias, I will gladly remove it myself. It would just be a shame to allow ones personal opinions regarding the Congressman, Health Care Reform, or any other similar factors prevent the display of legitimate information. Jasonryder1989 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing references for the material you added and for bringing this discussion to the talk page. I think it should be clarified that the notability of other stuff in this article does not have any relevance to the notability of the incident that you described. Here is the text that you added as a subsection of the Controversies section:

During the national debate over President Barack Obama's proposed health care reform bill, numerous members of congress held town hall meetings to discuss the the matter with constituents, Representative Ellison among them. In August of 2009, a constituent posited the following question to Ellison: "Representative Ellison, are you willing to put your family under this government system, which is different from the one you currently use? If you are not willing to put your family on the system, why should the rest of us?" To which Ellison responded, "Alright, next question". After footage of this interview was uploaded to the internet, the aforementioned piece of dialogue quickly garnered attention by print and cable news sources wherein controversy ensued over whether the congressman's response was intended simply as a callous disregard for the constituent, or as an objection to the premise of the question.

I maintain that this supposed "controversy" is an utter non-event both in the Congressman's career and generally. I removed it because it lacks notability and the citations did not appear to lend any credence to the assertion that this was widely reported on in print and cable news sources. I trust that you are not trying to slight the Congressman in any way, but this article (like most politician's) is subject to use as a coatrack and tendentious edits on occasion, so it's good if we're careful. Gobonobo T C 05:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Rights of individuals

In an interview with the BBC's Program Outlook, on Nov. 12th 2010, Ellison was asked the sort of people he represents. He answered: "The district I represent is the kind of district where you can have a Member of Congress stand up for religious tolerance and against religious bigotry, against anyone, but also stand up for the rights of gays too." [106]" How is this a controversy?--Gulchgoblin (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Keith Ellison moved to Keith Ellison (disambiguation) and Keith Ellison (politician) moved to Keith Ellison. GB fan 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Keith Ellison (politician) → Keith Ellison – Primary topic. Page views: 9,065, 1,031, 358. Marcus Qwertyus 18:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. Unlikely to be a more well known Keith Ellison so yes I agree this ought to be primary. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. It seems that Congressman Ellison's article would be the desired destination of most readers who search for "Keith Ellison". Gobonobo T C 20:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can you justify any of the links generated under the {{Conglinks}} template? Per WP:EL,

  • No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

All parameters are justified by WP:ELNO, although not your particular interpretation. Furthermore, this is a long-standing template and each parameter does not have to be justified for each and every, current and former, US Senator, Rep. and candidate. Your continuing efforts to be disruptive and conceal all public interest information is becoming quite tireless. I really think you'd be happier elsewhere. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I would be more convinced if the "public" whose interest was supposed to be supported wasn't entirely the left wing of the Democratic Party, but each external link, even those from unimpeachable sources, needs to have relevance to the article justified, per WP:EL. If you don't like it, get consensus to change WP:EL to support your assertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversial Issues and Un-Islamic Beliefs

Unlike most Muslims, he supports abortion, same-sex unions and steam-cell research. Most Muslims consider abortion a crime and only accept it for extreme cases. The entry should show this, since most orthodox Muslims would regard someone like him as an anathema for Islam. He must already have been criticized by Muslims for his controversial and unislamic stances on these issues, so the entry could also show some of these criticism. Here is the link for his stance on controversial issues: [1].85.240.20.77 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this needs a section. Should every political have an un-ABC beliefs area for their professed religion? Midlakewinter (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since he is a Muslim it makes sense to state that he disagrees with mainstream Islam in several controversial issues. Louis Farrakhan, in these issues, despite being from the Nation of Islam, seems more close to mainstream Islam. There are very few Muslims in American politics, so I think it makes sense.85.240.20.77 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What mainstream sources have commented on this matter, if any? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You'll need some noteworthy Muslim making the critique and quote that figure, wiki doesnt insert UN-Catholic Beliefs segments in Pro-choice Roman Catholic politicians, though the Catholic Church has declared that any politician that acts to support abortion rights have excomunected themselves, it is only mentioned on a politicans wiki page if a quote naming that politician is made by a noteworthy Catholic leader.Wowaconia (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and plenty of Christians would argue other denominations will go to hell as they are not true believers, it doesn't mean you can title a section so POV sounding that it seems like Wikipedia has written he isn't a real Muslim. If he says he is a Muslim, than he should be put down as one, but you could add a section of criticisms, and include what people have said about him not really being an Islam. Titling a section - Un-Islamic belief is beyond problematic, just because his viewpoints differ with orthodox Islam or whatever doesn't warrant such a loaded title (I mean many "Christians" on Wikipedia have been simply put as people who believe in God and Jesus, this is akin to some Muslims simply believing in a deity and Muhammad rather than religious observance). It would be almost as if it is accusing him, so better title it "Criticism", and add criticism of his religious conviction by source A B or C that have actually done it. To my knowledge, no such criticism has been made, but if I'm wrong do it this way, instead of starting a possible tag for neutrality issue. 70.69.168.225 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keith Ellison. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Keith Ellison. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Keith Ellison. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I restored this blanking of well-sourced material by an anonymous editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Ellison&type=revision&diff=749673279&oldid=749670140 Saying, "not a controversy or relevant to overall article" is simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

When Ellison was promoted for chair of DNC, I worried that his enemies would edit this page with biased attacks. Now I worry that his supporters may do more damage.

I think that if you support Ellison, the best thing you can do for him is write an accurate, balanced, NPOV page. --Nbauman (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

DNC Chair

We need a section on his nomination for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship. I'm looking for good WP:RSs. Here's one: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/why_the_democrats_need_keith_ellison.html
Why the Democrats Need Keith Ellison
The candidate for DNC chairman wants to lead an anti-Trump resistance, not search for areas of cooperation.
By Michelle Goldberg
Slate
Nov. 15 2016
The section should give substantive reasons for supporting or opposing him on the issues, not WP:PEACOCK terms. --Nbauman (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As an opinion piece, it does not meet rs, per "News organizations". TFD (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Keith Ellison. 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) 09:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Source on DNC plans

I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 23:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Added Endorsements for Ellison for DNC Chair

I've added a partial list of people and organizations who/that have endorsed Keith Ellison. There was no list for Ellison but there was one for his chief opponent Tom Perez. I am not a regular wikipedian, so I welcome any help or corrections in the format and additions to the list, which is incomplete. Robkall (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias

This article appears to downplay some of the controversy associated with Keith Ellison. This includes neglecting to mention his support of black separatism in a newspaper column he wrote, despite the face that this page includes some other statements from that same column. His support for figures such as Sara Jane Olson and Assata Shakur is also unmentioned. These facts should be presented in a neutral way, but need to be mentioned in the article because they are well-known controversies.SThompson (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

We write concise, encyclopedic biographies, and mentioning every single thing that a person did that was once mentioned in a news article, whether positive or negative, does not necessarily reflect encyclopedic writing style nor place due weight on these sources. That he once wrote an article supporting someone may be true, but mere truth is not the baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia. Is it true and relevant? I don't think it's relevant to mention every single person that anyone at one time supported or opposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, I don't see any reliable source stating that Ellison supported "black separatism" — there's a column which clearly supports reparations for slavery, but extrapolating from that support for "separatism" is, at best, your original research or synthesis which is prohibited on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This information is relevant because it is often brought up by his critics. Furthermore, the newspaper column in which he calls for reparations is the same column in which he advocates for separatism, and the argument for reparations is mentioned in the article; if that is worth mentioning, why not his support for separatism? I think it reflects a bias not to mention what is arguably the most controversial statement he has made. As for reliable sources stating that he supported black separatism, I cited the Minnesota Daily, reprinting the columns written by Ellison. Here is a direct quote from Ellison: “Blacks would have the option of choosing their own land base or remaining in the United States. Since black people toiled most diligently in the southeastern section of the United States, this land, quite naturally, would be most suitable. That means Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. Blacks, of course, would not be compelled to move to the black state, and, of course, peaceful whites would not be compelled to move away.” This is very clearly Ellison promoting the idea of a "black state." I did not extrapolate anything.SThompson (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It's actually the very definition of original research and synthesis, because giving black people land as reparations does not require creating a separate nation, and Ellison does not state that the area would become a separate nation. Regardless, the fact that he discussed something in a column written when he was a third-year law student doesn't really seem to belong in this biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how this is original research, but Ellison's use of the term "black state" means it is more than just giving land as reparations. Anyway, I suppose I could cite the Minnesota Daily article (the current version cites two dead links) and anyone who wants to read it can decide what it means. As for Ellison's support of controversial figures, that was more recent and even less ambiguous. This is frequently discussed by his critics and is worthy of inclusion in the article.SThompson (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a whole section about his involvement with the Nation of Islam and the columns are mentioned although not in that extensive detail. It is a matter of weight. How much detail we provide depends on how much coverage they get in reliable sources. If readers want to know more about Nation of Islam beliefs they can click on the internal link at go to Nation of Islam#Separatism. I don't know of any opponents who have discussed this specific aspect, at least that has been reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I see your point. However, my main grievance is that a (perhaps the) primary source of contention surrounding Ellison is his association with controversial figures. Many are not noteworthy enough to mention, but some are. That Louis Farrakhan is the only one named in the article seems to imply that he is the only controversial person Ellison has defended. This seems biased in that it minimizes this controversy. Here is my suggestion: rather than dedicated a subsection of the article to controversial figures associated with Ellison, I'll edit the subsection about the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan to mention a few of the other people associated with this group whom Ellison has defended.SThompson (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Policy says that articles should provide the same weight to facts as are presented in reliable sources. I do not see any discussion about the other figures and in fact very little about the Nation of Islam. The purpose of the article is not to expose the information that mainstream media ignores, there are other sites that do that very well. I imagine from your comment that you do not get your news from mainstream media. TFD (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
He's citing to CNN. Are you saying that CNN is not part of the mainstream media? What am I missing?
Also don't make constant, ongoing personal attacks to bully other editors, or you may be blocked. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am citing CNN and the Minnesota Daily (reprinting columns written by Ellison). I believe both of those count as mainstream media. Although it is given more attention in conservative media, the mainstream media does indeed cover Ellison's associations with controversial figures. I think the best solution may be to mention some of the controversial people discussed in these two sources. That way this issue isn't completely overlooked in the Wikipedia article, and it isn't exposing information the mainstream media ignores.SThompson (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You did not say you were citing CNN, you said you were interpreting columns written by Ellison that had been republished. Anyway, many people rely on alternative media as their main source of news, which weigh facts and opinions differently from mainstream media. While CNN did run a story about Ellison and the Nation of Islam in December, it's buried in their search for articles about Ellison (I could not find it.)[2] But when I conduct the same search at Breitbart, most of the hits are about this or similar.[3] So if you get your news from Breitbart, then you would wonder why half the article isn't about the Nation of Islam. But if you get your news from CNN, you might have missed the Nation of Islam story and wonder why it has so much space in this article. Out of interest, where did you first learn about the story? TFD (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to talk about article content rather than inquire about personal details on SThompson. For starters, I agree that the secondary source commentary does not appear to support the claims about separatism. Although it is awfully close to the kind of plain-English interpretation that is allowable and doesn't count as OR, I'm not sure it's quite there, and more importantly, the MN Daily had the opportunity to say the column supported separatism, but they did not say that. If I missed any source text showing unmistakeable support for this claim, please post it here.
However, I don't see problems with the remainder of the material. Is there any objection to the parts not dealing with alleged advocacy of separatism? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Due and undue weight govern how we write articles; these are encyclopedic biographies, not hyper-detailed investigative examinations of every minute aspect of their lives. We already adequately discuss these issues and adding even more detail places undue weight on a small part of his life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm well aware of weight and other relevant policies. Do you have an objection that is based on one of them? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I object to giving undue weight to the Nation of Islam, which a minor aspect that has little coverage in reliable sources in proportion to overall coverage of the subject. Do you have any reason based on policy for expanding coverage in the article? TFD (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think an extra six sentences constitutes "giving undue weight" to what is possibly the biggest controversy surrounding Ellison. There is more about the Bill Sali comments than there is about the Ellison's controversial associations, and I think this is the first time anyone has mentioned Sali's comments since 2007; the CNN article I cited was from two months ago.SThompson (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you make a good point; the Sali remarks section is probably too large and detailed, especially given that there is a separate article about it where those details belong, and I would propose that it be reduced in size. Your claim that 30-year-old remarks in a student newspaper are "the biggest controversy surrounding Ellison" is unsourced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was Ellison's controversial associations are probably the biggest controversy surrounding him, not the newspaper remarks specifically; those are only one example. He has defended Farrakhan and other such figures throughout the 1990s, even into this century.SThompson (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

By "biggest controversy" I assume you meant it is also highly significant. Again, it dominates right-wing websites but not mainstream news sites. CNN has 267 articles about Ellison, how many mention it? Yet it is mentioned in at least half of Breitbart articles mention it. The relevant policy is [[WP:BALASPS|"Balancing aspects"]: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

What is important to you may not be important to someone else. But policy says that importance for articles is determined by what reliable sources consider important.

TFD (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite obviously the mainstream press does consider these issues to be very important. The fact that the same issues have received coverage in low quality sites is irrelevant; we don't need to use those sources, just like we don't need to use any of the countless low quality leftist sources that parrot political talking points.
The Nation of Islam associations and anti-Semitism accusations are the central controversy surrounding Ellison's candidacy for one of the most powerful positions in the world, and they have drawn wide and extensive mainstream news coverage and analysis. Very little of it is reflected in this article. So right now we have far less than due weight.
Among other things I suggest looking at what the Jewish and Israeli press have said about the issue.
There are also problems with outrageously unsourced POV-pushing presentation of this material—such as an uncited and probably untrue claim that some random bloggers who revealed Ellison's past associations to the press were in fact "Minnesota Republican operatives".
Looks like rank dishonesty to me, and that is not supposed to appear in WP articles. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence to support your assertion, "Quite obviously the mainstream press does consider these issues to be very important." While it may be obvious to you, it isn't to me and as I explained, CNN has given the issue far less coverage as a percentage of total coverage than this article already does. TFD (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you describe why you think your own conclusory claims about your own questionable analysis of an unidentified Google search regarding a single news organization should force me to conclude that the numerous RS discussions of this material should be omitted because "the mainstream media ignores" the issue? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Breitbart ran an article today called, "DNC Chair Race: Progressives’ Aggressive Tactics to Elect Keith Ellison Backfire" which takes the opportunity to repeat the "controversy." But an article in The Washington Post, "Keith Ellison endorsed by former rival in DNC race," does not mention it at all. That is a difference in emphasis between a mainstream reliable source and a fringe unreliable source.
If you think that CNN is not representative of mainstream media, then show me another mainstream source that handles it differently. And if you think my analysis is questionable, then provide a methodology for determining the weight of coverage in reliable sources.
And can you please explain your reasoning rather than saying what you say is "obvious."
TFD (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is citing to Breitbart, your thoughts on Breitbart and other websites not being proposed as sources aren't relevant. Yes, obviously CNN is a mainstream source. But just saying "I did an unspecified google search regarding CNN and it proved my point" isn't helpful.
The allegations are widely covered in the mainstream press. Even after I helpfully omitted all the RS's that I believe to have conservative leanings, a few minutes with google yielded search results where just the first 2 or 3 pages out of 30+ pages of search results showed discussion of the topic in countless RS's—such the New Yorker, US News & World Report, Jewish Telegraphic Association, Mother Jones, Salon, Slate, The Nation, Huffington Post, Washington Free Beacon, Washington Times, Yeshiva World News, Jerusalem Post, Washington Post, CNN, MN Star Tribune, Alpha News Minnesot, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, NBC, CBS, Commentary magazine, Forward magazine, Israel National News, the Jewish Star, Times of Israel, Haaretz, Religion News Service, the list goes on. Sharp criticisms abound in the mainstream press, and that's the only type of source I propose to use. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm unclear why you think we should be relying on the Israeli press as a source for comment on a candidate for the chairmanship of the United States Democratic Party. He's not running for office in Israel, he's running for an internal party office in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Easy:(a) the aim of Wikipedia articles is to reflect worldwide views on the article subject; (b) maybe, just maybe Jews and Israelis have some special insight into whether something is anti-Semitic but I'd be really interested in hearing arguments to the contrary; (c) an extraordinarily great deal of criticism of American conservative politicians found in WP articles is sourced to a couple of left-leaning British newspapers. International sourcing is commonplace. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be quite insistent on leaning on one particular POV and issue here, which is already thoroughly adequately covered. If you want to grind an ax about a living person that you politically oppose, Wikipedia is not the place for you to do that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, are you saying you don't want this article to reflect worldwide views on the subject, or were you just making a casual personal attack? Because just now you were asking why we should use Israeli sources and I explained why with direct reference to policy and your response just seems to ignore the question and answer while making a petty attack. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to note that your editing history suggests that you are not here to build an Internet encyclopedia, but rather for the more singular purpose of inserting negative material into the biographies of your personal political opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you feel that your question about the propriety of using sources from the Israeli press has been answered? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that being Jewish makes one an expert on anti-Semitism or that what one Jewish person says is somehow representative of what Jewish people think. I don't think this is the place for a lengthy discussion of how Jews may differ from non-Jews, and think we should stick to policy. Nothing says that opinions expressed by Jews or Israelis should be assigned greater weight. If you want to change the policy, I suggest you post your recommendations there. TFD (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no suggestion or need to change policy nor is anybody attempting a "lengthy discussion" of whether Jews have any special perspective on anti-Semitism. The existing policy on due weight already requires us to discuss topics that are discussed extensively in RS's, and this topic is discussed extensively in RS's. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is getting off topic. I think it has been proven that there is enough press coverage of Ellison's controversial associations to warrant an extra five or six sentences discussing it. The issue of anti-Semitism isn't important for encyclopedia purposes; for the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia can't take a stance on whether or not Ellison is anti-Semitic. Nobody is citing Breitbart or right wing websites, so that is also irrelevant. Adding a small amount of information pertaining to ongoing controversies surrounding Ellison does not give undue weight to the subject; rather it would give adequate weight.SThompson (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It has not been proved at all. Mainstream media paid passing attention to the issue and that's all. It does not even justify the extensive coverage already in the article. Again, the relevant policy is [WP:BALSPS|"Balancing aspects"]] and if you think this article should read more like a summary of what Breitbart pays attention to rather than mainstream sources, get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Stop brining up Breitbart; that has nothing to do with this! I think it has been proven; I'll repeat the partial list made earlier by Centrify: "the New Yorker, US News & World Report, Jewish Telegraphic Association, Mother Jones, Salon, Slate, The Nation, Huffington Post, Washington Free Beacon, Washington Times, Yeshiva World News, Jerusalem Post, Washington Post, CNN, MN Star Tribune, Alpha News Minnesot, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, NBC, CBS, Commentary magazine, Forward magazine, Israel National News, the Jewish Star, Times of Israel, Haaretz, Religion News Service." And the attention paid to this is not passing, it has been an issue throughout Ellison's entire political career. As for balancing aspects, it is currently unbalanced due to how little attention this issue has in the article. As my proposed edits would only add a few sentences to the article, I don't think that could be considered excessive.SThompson (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We already spend more space on the issue in two separate places than basically any other single thing about Ellison. If anything, it should be reduced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, they all mentioned it. But they devout far less of a percentage of space to this aspect of Ellison than we do. Unlike Breitbart. TFD (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It is absolutely untrue that this issue is discussed more than anything else in the article. Breitbart is still irrelevant. Since this is going in circles, I'll try to move it along. Here is my proposed edit:

"As a law student in 1989 and 1990, Ellison wrote several columns under the name "Keith E. Hakim" in the student newspaper, the Minnesota Daily. He defended Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, and Kwame Ture against claims of racism and anti-Semitism. He also called affirmative action a "sneaky" form of compensation for slavery, suggesting that white Americans instead pay reparations. Mother Jones reported that, under the name "Keith X Ellison," he wrote defenses of Farrakhan against accusations of anti-semitism after the 1995 Million Man March, and again in 1997. In 1998 Ellison was photographed holding copies of The Final Call, the official newspaper of the Nation of Islam; the phot was uncovered by the Minnesota Democrat Exposed blog and published in 2006. A spokesman for Ellison stated "The source of this photo is an old right-wing attack blog whose author now regrets his writings.”

In 2000 Ellison attended a fundraiser for Symbionese Liberation Army member Sara Jane Olson. He called himself "a supporter of anybody who's subject to political prosecution based on their being in a vilified group" and questioned whether Olson would receive a fair trial. He has also spoken favorably of Assata Shakur, a member of the Black Panther Party, and expressed opposition to any efforts to have her extradited from Cuba."

This adds only four sentences and slightly extends one. I would also change the name of this section from "Louis Farrakhan and history with the Nation of Islam" to "Nation of Islam and revolutionary groups" or something like that. This better addresses the issue, but does not give it undue weight. It is also presented in an unbiased manner and improves the neutrality of the article by giving adequate attention to a controversial issue that is downplayed in the current version.SThompson (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said, we already provide more proportionately more criticism than articles in mainstream media and adding to it would increase the bias of the article. TFD (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly said, this issue is downplayed; Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are the only ones mentioned in the current version when Ellison has actually defended numerous controversial people and groups. Some of them haven't received enough attention to make them worth mentioning, but some of the more notable ones should be mentioned. My proposed edits would accomplish this and make the article less biased. So does anyone have any specific objects to the changes suggested that don't have anything to do with Breitbart or the false assertion that the issue is already discussed more than anything else?SThompson (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, the guiding policy is balancing aspects and if reliable sources choose to downplay this information then so should this article. You can always get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, it is downplayed here compared to the way it is presented in the media. For example, a number of sources mention the Sara Jane Olson fundraiser (CNN, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune); I think it is reasonable to give it a sentence or two on Wikipedia. It is currently unbalanced because the Wikipedia article makes no mention of it; with this edit the attention it receives here will be more proportionate to the attention it receives elsewhere.SThompson (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead and take a crack at some edits. The idea that "reliable sources choose to downplay this information" is fanciful; it's discussed extensively mainstream press. Again, it is far and away the most significant controversy relating to Ellison's candidacy for DNC chair, by any conceivable metric including google results, and TFD's irrelevant and frankly annoying serial musings about Breitbart don't change that. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ĥere's a link to a search of Washington Post articles about "Keith Ellison" since 2005. There are 737 articles. How many of them are devoted to or even mention your criticisms? If you want to increase the size of the section, then you need to increase the size of other sections in order to maintain weight.
Here's a link to a Google news search of "Sara Jane Olson"+"keith ellison". There are sixteen hits: 1 each for the Washington Post and CNN. There are no other articles shown for mainstream media and most of the other stories are in right-wing media, such as WND, National Review, FrontPageMag, the Weekly Standard the Washington Free Beacon and Power Line. Even the right-wing blogs don't devote much space to it.
TFD (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Le sigh. Besides bullying newbies and reciting bogus policy analysis like some sort of magic spell, you won't even report your own Google searches accurately.

or not On top of the fact that your search as constructed conveniently omits other instances of publication, your own search yields results you ignore, including opinion and news articles from The Hill ("Past ties make Ellison the worst possible choice for DNC chairman") and the Independent Journalism Review ("DNC Chair Candidate Cancels NY Times Interview When He Learns They'll Ask About His Uncovered Past").

On top of that, National Review and Weekly Standard are both mainstream publications despite being (gasp!) conservative. And the very progressively liberal Washington Post devotes an entire paragraph to discussing the Sara Jane Olson connection. CNN, meanwhile devotes six paragraphs to discussing Sara Jane Olson and Assata Shakur—yet neither is even mentioned in the WP article. That's just two small areas of the past-associations-and-views topic.

I think all you have really done is to help illustrate the POV problems we are complaining about. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The search does not "conveniently omit" anything. It is targeted to news articles that mention both Ellison and Olson, as you can see by clicking on the link. Anyway, you are giving a false equivalency between mainstream sources such as the country's network news and most respected newspapers on the one hand and right-wing media on the other, which is contrary to policy. TFD (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In summation, the information I intend to add has been covered in mainstream media; right-wing media is irrelevant. I have cited sources that clearly meet the guidelines for credibility. The accuracy of this information is not in dispute. As I am only dedicated a few sentences to this issue, it can't be considered undue weight. My proposed edits present the information in a neutral manner and include quotes from Ellison and his spokesman. Wikipedia is not a political ad for or against Ellison; information should not be suppressed based on whether it could be perceived as positive or negative. Suppression of such information introduces bias, therefore my edits would improve the article's neutrality. Does anyone take issue with any of this?SThompson (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have explained my views above. TFD (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy against including information that is discussed in conservative media (alt-right or otherwise) as long as reliable sources confirm its accuracy. And I don't think a serious argument can be made that three sentences dedicated to the Sara Jane Olson and Assata Shakur connections is excessive in proportion to the attention it has received in mainstream media. As per your previous suggestion, if I also add four positive sentences about Ellison to "maintain weight" will that absolve any objections to my edits?SThompson (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The policy is "Balancing aspects". If you click on it, you can read it. And I suggest you read "Weight" as well. It does not mean adding positive sentences to balance negative ones. If you think that the mainstream media has provided extensive coverage of Ellison and Olson, then you need to demonstrate that. So far you have only shown a single mention in two or three mainstream publications. TFD (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You just held up WaPo and CNN as examples of "mainstream sources" that would supposedly give appropriate treatment of the controversial past associations, and we are proposing to closely track the coverage they have given, and that's what every policy that's relevant requires, including BALASPS and other policies you've referenced), so if you have an objection to us tracking those sources I want you to, pretty please, put it into English words explicitly describing how tracking these sources would violate policy. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You are just repeating what you have already said and I have already answered. If among the mainstream media, only CNN and WaPo mention something, then it is not "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Furthermore, "isolated...news reports [in this case in CNN and Wapo] about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." TFD (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's discussed by CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Week, The Hill, Independent Journalism Review, Weekly Standard. Some of them discuss at length. Nothing isolated here. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
A few issues.
1. I have read the policy and it states that Wikipedia "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." An argument can't be made that a brief mention in the Wikipedia article is excessive in proportion to its treatment in mainstream media; the Sara Jane Olson and Assata Shakur comments have been discussed by CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Buffalo News, and Washington Times, to name a few.
2. You said previously "If you want to increase the size of the section, then you need to increase the size of other sections in order to maintain weight." This indicates that if I were to add four sentences to another section to "maintain weight" you would not object to my adding four sentences about Ellison's controversial associations.
3. You seem to think that all media that isn't left-leaning is on the same level as Breitbart. The Hill and Weekly Standard are just two examples of mainstream right-leaning media.
That being said, there just isn't a substantive argument against this (if you look at it realistically) very minor edit. As I've previously said, I'm willing to increase the size of other sections for the purpose of eliminating objections.SThompson (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a substantive argument, it's been made and there's no consensus for including it in this brief encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a substantive argument. Ellison's past associations are widely and extensively discussed in the mainstream press. They are the central controversy surrounding his candidacy for DNC chair. The only "arguments" to the contrary have been OMG LOOK HOW MUCH BREITBART COVERED IT and OMG I BET U GET ALL UR NEWS FROM BREITBART and OMG THE MAINSTREAM PRESS COVERED IT BUT WE SHOULDN'T. It's sheer nonsense.
Also this is not a "biography" and it certainly shouldn't be "brief". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a biography, because that's what we write — not political polemics or hit-pieces. If you want to do that, I suggest finding some other Internet site that might suit your needs better. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No, this is a biography. There's an encyclopedia article about it here. By contrast, this, here, is an encyclopedia article about a living person. If you wish this article to ignore the weight that has been given in mainstream sources to significant published criticisms of the subject, you should stop editing immediately. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Essentially every single one of your contributions here has been to depict the biographical subject negatively. This suggests that you are not here to write a neutral encyclopedia article about this person, but rather to grind your personal ax against him. We are not here to do that, and if that is your goal, you should find another article to edit or another project where ax-grinding against political opponents is acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal attacks, which were ongoing before I even arrived at this article, are not a substitute for legitimate discussion of article content and applicable policies. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Various changes reverted

@The Four Deuces: this revert is puzzling, could you please explain which of the following you find objectionable:

  • Fairly representing what the Anti-Defamation League actually said about Ellison, as discussed in the New York Times
  • Replacing a misleading statement about Ellison being "regarded as the leading candidate to become Chair" with one that fairly represents what the NPR and New York Times actually say, which is that he was an early favorite who then encountered troubles
  • Mentioning that some unions expressed reservations about Ellison, instead of only mentioning the unions that support him
  • Replacing an unsourced and inaccurate statement (about Alan Dershowitz's views on Israel and the Dem platform) with an unsourced but accurate statement
  • Explaining what Bill Sali has to do with the article subject by adding a sentence explaining how the surrounding narrative of events connects with Ellison so that the paragraph is not confusing as hell

I really don't get it, these are clear fixes IMO. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to follow your changes since you made 9 consecutive changes. There were problems with them.
You added: "However, Ellison faced growing opposition by early December 2016, with Jewish groups and some unions expressing unease with his candidacy." Does that mean all Jewish groups or just some? How many and which ones? Jews are not a monolithic group, so it is weasel wording.
No, it accurately reflects the views of the top-quality source, since it is the exact wording the source used. And the WP:WEASEL policy explicitly says that is proper. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You removed: "Opposition also arose from Democrats concerned that Ellison, a sitting Congressman, would not be able to devote himself to the position full-time. In response, Ellison pledged that he would resign from Congress if he won the election." That actually was the major objection expressed by the Democratic establishment.
I BOLDly removed that material thinking it was so trivial that nobody would object. It is now restored. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You removed: "Ellison also complained that the release of the audiotaped speech by the Washington, D.C.-based non-profit agency amounted to "an attempt by right-wing interests to drive a wedge between longstanding allies in the fight for equal rights." You should not removed responses by the subject to criticism, especially when you expand criticism.
No, you loon, I wrote that article prose and you removed it yourself. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
In any case, as we discussed above, we should not provide greater coverage to controversy than do reliable sources.
TFD (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It is the wording used by The New York Times, which is the source used, so I am dismissing your absolutely nonsensical and tendentious commentary about the sources not being reliable. You're also claiming I removed comments that I actually added because I'm the person who wrote them in the first place. And then you removed them yourself. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We have already spent a lot of time discussing these issues and I do not think that further discussion will be productive. In any case I suggest that we wait until after the vote today. If Ellison loses, then Factchecker will probably lose interest. If he wins, more editors are likely to pay attention. TFD (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
No, actually, we have only been talking about these issues for a little over 24 hours and you really haven't said anything about them. In any event, you call the above comments in this section "discussion"? You were asked to identify anything wrong with the edits and you responded with (1) a misstatement of WP:WEASEL; (2) a comment about material that is not actually in dispute; and (3) a dumb misreading of diffs that shows you weren't even paying attention. And now you're topping it off with a character attack. This is plain bad faith incompetent editing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"these changes which contain negative contentious claims"

Paging @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @The Four Deuces:

Wikipedia doesn't have any policy about "negative contentious claims". Rather it has a policy prohibiting poorly sourced contentious claims. But the claims removed were impeccably sourced to top quality mainstream reportage. Thus the removal was improper. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the fundamental question to @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @The Four Deuces: is how much coverage something needs to warrant a brief mention on Wikipedia. Normally one reliable source is considered enough, but apparently it requires more if it regards a controversy surrounding Keith Ellison.SThompson (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
In ten years editing Wikipedia, I think this is the first time I ever saw anybody object to material that was covered in-depth in the reported pages of the New York Times, which is the absolute model of mainstream journalism. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Paging @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @The Four Deuces: Is there any reason not to revert these removals? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The objections to your edits have been explained, and that there is no consensus for your proposed additions is clear. Your next step would be to initiate an RFC if you think broader input is needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof:What reason was stated? As noted, "negative contentious claims" has absolutely zero to so with Wikipedia policy, so it's not actually an objection. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
One source is adequate to meet reliable sourcing policy. However, it usually is not sufficient to meet neutrality policy. "balancing aspects," which is part of neutrality, says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." TFD (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Which of the edits you removed do you think reflects "isolated criticisms"? It was all widely covered in RS's. And note: The New York Times is the highest-quality English newspaper in existence, so the suggestion that they are promoting niche views is laughable. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The only relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. This is not a political ad for Ellison and should not suppress potentially negative information. Back to my original question: how much coverage would something need to meet your criteria for balancing aspects? My edits included information discussed in at least four major media outlets (CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journalm Chicago Tribune) and many smaller ones.SThompson (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz

I object to including a quote from Alan Dershowitz in a brief section about Keith Ellison's DNC chairmanship candidacy, because it places undue weight on his opinion when there are probably dozens if not hundreds of Democrats who we could quote about the issue, and yet do not include. If it was to be included, we would need to balance his quoted statement with others who disagree, and in a brief summary section of a biography, it is probably best not to get into a tit-for-tat quote-fest of pundits expressing opinions on either side. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the person who inserted the material does not seem to have a good grasp of policy; their bold insertion of the Dershowitz quote has now been reverted by two editors, and it's incumbent on them to demonstrate consensus for inclusion, not as their edit summary claims, a consensus to remove. I welcome broader discussion of the material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
First of all, Alan Dershowitz is a public persona who has his own wikipedia entry. Second, per the same entry "He is a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law, and a leading defender of civil liberties." Third, he's a leftist author of many books, in addition to his being a full professor at Harvard. Fourth, and most important, his statement is covered by numerous WP:RS, including The Washington Post[3], Fox News, and foreign media.XavierItzm (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Notice of Determination of Prima Facie Violation". State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings. September 14, 2004. Retrieved Dec18, 2006
  2. ^ court of Judge Steve M. Mihalchick (September 20, 2004). State of Minnesota office of Administrative Hearings http://www.oah.state.mn.us/aljBase/032016153.or.nopc.htm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Retrieved on Dec. 18, 2006
  3. ^ "Keith Ellison votes against GOP-backed Israel resolution". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 January 2017. Haim Saban, a major party donor, called Ellison an "anti-Semite," while lawyer and commentator Alan Dershowitz said that he would quit the party if Ellison won.
That someone has a Wikipedia article or is a public figure is no reason to add their comments to every article about topics they choose to discuss, particularly ones outside their areas of expertise. Also the argument that Dershowitz is a leftist, which he isn't - he supported Clinton, torture, foreign wars and criticized Obama and Kerry along with Ellison - is a disingenuous argument. TFD (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The argument that Dershowitz is not a leftist is counterfactual. The Wikipedia reads «A political liberal» (with 3 WP:RS citations. In any event, several WP:RS deem Dershowitz comments relevant, including the Washington Post. So if there are no further objections, we should be looking to re-inserting the material. XavierItzm (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Liberal is not leftist. Dershowitz opposes Ellison because he sees him as left-wing not despite seeing him as left-wing. But I suppose you see anyone who does not agree with as part of a monolithic Left, and it provides a diversion from the discussion. TFD (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. So, if the edit is altered to indicate Dershowitz is a liberal, do we have consensus to revert the blank-out? XavierItzm (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the relevance of saying he is a liberal? TFD (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I am not sure. For some reason, user The Four Deuces stated «Also the argument that Dershowitz is a leftist, which he isn't - he supported Clinton, torture, foreign wars and criticized Obama and Kerry along with Ellison - is a disingenuous argument.». That's a very strange thing to say, but hey, user The Four Deuces did, not I. Me, I just think the fact that several WP:RS reported it (i.e. it is considered relevant) is sufficient of reason to include. XavierItzm (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The sources do not say, "Dershowitz, who is a leftist/liberal...." You may think hey someone who has the same belief system as Ellison opposes him. TFD (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The edit in question never mentioned "leftist/liberal". It just said that Alan Dershowitz has stated he will resign party membership if Ellison is appointed chairman of the DNC. Not sure why the "leftist/liberal" it is being argued here (!) Having said that, the Wikipedia entry on Dershowitz states that the guy is a liberal and provides three WP:RS. So, now that we are clear the Dershowitz quote on the Ellison article is only about his comment, I'd like to put it back in, unless there are other objections. XavierItzm (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It is being argued here because you brought it up as a reason to mention him: "Third, he's a leftist author of many books, in addition to his being a full professor at Harvard."[01:25, 7 January 2017] (Not clear if your are drawing a connection between being a leftist and a Harvard professor.) So if it is not a valid argument for inclusion, per weight, what is? TFD (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, per weight:

  • Alan Dershowitz is a public persona who has his own wikipedia entry.
  • Per the same entry "He is a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law, and a leading defender of civil liberties."
  • He's author of many books, in addition to his being a full professor at Harvard.
  • Most important, his statement is covered by numerous WP:RS, including The Washington Post , Fox News, and foreign media.

Looks pretty weighty to me. Besides, the guy is a liberal (per Wikipedia), not that it matters a whit. XavierItzm (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As I already explained to you, "weight" is a Wikipedia policy that "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It has nothing to do with how famous someone is, how qualified they are, whether they have a Wikipedia article or whether they are "left-wing." If you do not like that policy, get it changed. TFD (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dershowitz' viewpoint seems pretty weighty insofar as it has been included by WP:RS such as The Washington Post , Fox News, and foreign media. XavierItzm (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I continue to disagree, because if we inserted it, we would of course have to balance it with at least one quote from a notable Democratic figure who supports Ellison. As this would lead to tit-for-tat quote-spam about a single issue in a single part of Ellison's biography, I don't think it belongs. If we had an article about Ellison's DNC candidacy which included a wide array of reactions to Ellison's candidacy from different notable figures, it might have a place there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I hear that if a counterweight quote is added, you are OK with the content. Good enough. Other than that, I don't see Wikipedia running out of storage space, so I am not sure there is a need to omit data well supported by WP:RS for length reasons. XavierItzm (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that is what the editor said. If you want to create an article about Ellison's campaign for chair of the DNC or about the race itself, then it might be worth including in that article provided the range of views was presented in accordance with their weight. I get the impression though that you are not interested in developing that article, but merely in inserting negative comments about Ellison. TFD (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
In proportion to the coverage of the DNC contest, Dershowitz's comments have received little attention and the DNC race is a small aspect of Ellison's career to date. TFD (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The Alan Dershowitz bit should be included somewhere to some extent. It is verifiable because it has multiple reliable sources covering it. It is on-topic because it is directly about the article subject. Being verifiable and on-topic are the only requirements for inclusion apart from space concerns.
Now, if user NBSB is correct in arguing that there is not enough space to include it and other statements that are needed for due weight considerations, then the relevant section should be made into its own article and all the relevant information can be included there with proper due weight. This sub article should then be summarized here in the main Keith Ellison article and linked to at the top of the section. This is standard practice because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We should never let "due weight" concerns to keep us from including verifiable information about notable topics in Wikpedia. Wikipedia should continue to grow and allow all verifiable information about notable topics.
Due weight considerations should only affect how we include verifiable information: How much if any coverage it gets in a limited-space section or article. And what other information should be included to give the information context and balance so that it is not misleading. 75.119.248.68 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You're correct; as TFD said, I think I would be quite proper to include the quote in a larger article focused either on Ellison's DNC chairmanship candidacy or perhaps the DNC chairmanship race in general, in which we could draw from and cite a variety of reactions to various candidacies, both positive and negative, weighted in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. That way the quote would be contextualized and presented as what it is — a likely notable opinion, but one of many, many notable opinions that collide and clash on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
So, in the end, the edit is quite proper to include, and there are no outstanding objections to it at all anymore, except people don't want it on this article, but on a separate article. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The comments in opposition above are rife with unnecessary personal attacks and motive-questioning.

Unfortunately, XavierItzm, such bullying and manipulation of inexperienced users are commonplace in content disputes on Wikipedia. I apologize on behalf of the community for the treatment you have experienced here.

More importantly, although a number of specious arguments have been raised above, no valid basis for objecting to the material has been raised. Inclusion is proper and this is the correct article for it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUE does not instruct us to find a "counterpoint" for every negative comment that has been made about a public figure, nor does it authorize us to exclude unfavorable commentary simply because it is unfavorable. Dershowitz is a very influential figure and lifelong Democrat whose comments were widely reported in RS's for precisely that reason. The stated objections to inclusion are utterly meritless. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added a secondary source.XavierItzm (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sentence about Dershowitz conveys absolutely no information to our readers about the subject of this article. If you want to convey to our readers that Dershowitz is a Harvard professor, or that Dershowitz doesn't like the policies of Obama & Kerry, or that Dershowitz doesn't want to be represented by this person or that person, fine -- but all of that is information for the Dershowitz article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You're simply wrong; it conveys the fact that a legendary giant of American liberalism has repudiated Ellison, which fact countless RS have discussed because it is so obviously important.
The tidbits about Dershowitz opposing Obama Israel policies was added as a concession to NorthBySouthBaranof, who insisted on addition of some kind of qualifier. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The citation was removed by NorthBySouthBaranof with the rationale that Dershowitz is not a Democrat. As that is not a valid reason for removing citations, it will be added back. XavierItzm (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You should probably first address the concerns raised above, or your proposed problematic addition isn't likely to remain in the article. Keep in mind that the proposed information might be "obviously important" enough to include in the Dershowitz article, but it doesn't convey any new information about the subject of this article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The "concern" as stated is vacuous. The comments were reported because of their importance. At bottom you are merely ranting about the editorial decisions of RS's. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Ellison/Archive_2&oldid=1142347836"