Talk:Emanuel Cleaver

message: The article states that Mr. Cleaver was elected "Mayor of Kansas." That title makes no sense. Would someone with sources please correct to "Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri"?
165.91.13.196 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mayor

message: I'm a bit surprised that there isn't a section on this bio addressing a few controversies over the years that have followed Mr Cleaver. Specifically, small things like his purchase of Charlie Parker's plastic sax (I don't remember the amount spent, but many considered it excessive), and his calling light rail "touristy frou-frou" (which I suspect his opinion has been revising over the years). These are large items in Kansas City political lore that have reverberations today. I'm not volunteering, but it seems like it would be helpful to mention these things in a neutral tone as usual, because I suspect that Mr Cleaver will be gaining additional public attention in the coming years, as being Kansas City's first African-American (former) mayor during the time of our first African-American president. Subversionarts (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Emanuel Cleaver's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "votesmart":
From Mike Thompson (California politician): 
From Carlos Curbelo (politician): 
From Hakeem Jeffries: 
From Karen Bass: 
From Jim Himes: 
From Scott Perry (politician): 
From Peter DeFazio: DeFazio's profile from Project Vote Smart
From Bill Shuster: Project Vote Smart
From Chris Collins (U.S. politician): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Emanuel Cleaver]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Emanuel Cleaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604022805/http://jacksoncountydemocraticcommittee.org/elected-officials/emanuel-cleaver/ to http://jacksoncountydemocraticcommittee.org/elected-officials/emanuel-cleaver/
*Added  tag to http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/kraske-cleaver-wants-charges-against-waters-rangel-dropped/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030506/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9TVG6EG3.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9TVG6EG3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emanuel Cleaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822192321/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2953 to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2953
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emanuel Cleaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408022358/http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/06/3540958/taxpayers-could-have-to-cover.html to http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/06/3540958/taxpayers-could-have-to-cover.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This matter is being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Emanuel_Cleaver_II. Please contribute there in the first instance. Arcturus (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * This material has been challenged by multiple editors and must stay out unless a consensus develops for inclusion. As I noted in my edit summary, this seems entirely trivial to me. Other users have expressed the same view. This is not only a BLP matter, but also a question of simple lack of weight. The material added, for example, was longer than the text devoted to his two terms as mayor of a major city. Neutralitytalk 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do like edit warring, don't you. Arcturus (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

text: No, this is unlikely to have any WP:LASTING impact. It was something for Ben Shapiro to rage over for one of his shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

text: This is undue. It's a dad joke of no significance that has been turned into a culture war faux controversy by right-wing outlets. Per linguist John McWhorter, it's a "long-lived Southern/black preacher signature." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

text: There are many. Here's one . It's a UK-based newspaper, but it came to the top of my Google list. Here's a US one, , but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a RS. It looks like it does. Arcturus (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not include it just based on that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

text: As can be partially evidenced here by the fact that nobody other than you has commented on this since the day the thread started, it should be clear that this was a WP:RECENTISM bias. There is no WP:LASTING coverage of it, no new news articles about it in a month. Therefore, WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not start this thread or the other one. Additionally this would qualify in the lasting effect as there has been coverage of it. Here are two different links to pages one written within the last week and the other less than two weeks old. This sources are opinion pieces, but it shows that it still be coverage which is contrary to your reason for undoing.    Additonally, this is not WP:RECENTISM bias as it has been nearly a month since the amen and awomen event and this has been my first edit to the page. I could argue that Cleaver's loan default or office attack sections could be removed for WP:RECENTISM as well as articles have not been written on those for quite some time. When typing in "Emanuel Cleaver" in Google the first thing that comes up after is "prayer" another sign that it is not WP:RECENTISM As I have not violated any policies and your accusations have been proven false I am reverting the edit.Grahaml35 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , do not reinsert contested material just because you feel like it. There is no consensus to include this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Muboshgu, do not remove contested material just because you feel like it. There is no consensus to remove this. Additionally, the remarks you made disqualifying the content was proven false.Grahaml35 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Muboshgu Additionally, how I find interesting that it was removed for WP:RECENTISM & WP:LASTING but after that was proven completely false it is now being removed because of no "consensus". Grahaml35 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: , this is a BLP. Contested material stays off until a WP:CONSENSUS is established to include it, not the other way around. There is no consensus for inclusion here. Nor was there when this issue was discussed at WP:BLPN. It was removed for RECENTISM and LASTING because it was added via RECENTISM and there is no LASTING impact. I have looked and see no new articles about this, because it's over and has no lasting impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Muboshgu I listed multiple links that show this has had a LASTING impact. I will post the links again here.  Grahaml35 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Two op-eds do not demonstrate LASTING impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said they did. You claimed "I have looked and see no new articles about this, because it's over and has no lasting impact." I posted you two articles disproving that. Here is another article about the topic of " amen & awomen" 9 to 10 days after the event.  More proof that this was not a 24 hour event.   Grahaml35 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Needs to be included. Wikipedia is so biased 47.200.110.84 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amen and Awomen 

message: The above RfC about "Amen/Awomen" was closed by a non-admin editor who subsequently reverted ("vacated") their decision. Yet, the RfC has not been re-opened. Should the closer's revert mean that the RfC is nullified entirely, as if it never existed? And why? Isn't the appropriate course for the RfC to be re-opened and for a non-involved administrator to close it?-The Gnome (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done this (re-listing, not re-closing). El_C 15:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've re-closed this request, after all, as no consensus. El_C 16:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, I adamantly against another person coming and overturning a RfC closure. That is an awful practice. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Challenge_to_non-admin_closure_of_RfC_at_BLP_article_Emanuel_Cleaver — there was a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, with consensus to overturn. Also, the WP:NAC was voluntarily vacated by the closer. Not sure whether this is about you not getting the result you wanted (?), but your view of the record is quite off. El_C 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was unaware there was even a challenge. Additionally, in the challenge, User:Neutrality states incorrect information. This is not about the result, but it is a bad precedent to have something finalized and then just have a user involved challenge it and have it overturned. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a "precedent." It's routine. Anyway, this article talk page isn't the venue to address all of that. The place to do so would be at WT:CON. El_C 22:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC struck off or closure-reverted?