Talk:Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress

message: - Can anyone provide a link where Ellision has said he would be sworn in on the Koran prior to Prager writing his column? 24.82.91.241 07:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did Prager get information?

message: ***Note this Wik-article used to be called "Keith Ellison, Dennis Prager, and the Oath on the Quran" it was renamed as per points in this discussion***Wowaconia 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead paragraph is a big problem. The first sentence isn't a proper sentence at all, for one thing, and there's an irritating assumption that everyone will know the article is referring to the U.S. I've specified United States Congress (it's not the only Congress in the world!) but I agree with you; this is more like a newspaper article or an essay than an encyclopedia one. The title is pretty terrible, too: is there an "accepted" way of referring to this event? If so, use it. Loganberry (Talk) 12:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congressional oath controversy, 2006? Fys. Ta fys aym. 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: “News style - Some Wikipedians advocate using a news style. News style is the prose style of short, front-page newspaper stories and the news bulletins that air on radio and television. It encompasses not only vocabulary and sentence structure, but the order in which stories present information, their tone and the readers or interests to which they cater. Encyclopedia articles do not have to follow news style, but a familiarity with the conventions may be a great help in planning the style and layout of an article.”
If as you say "this is more like a newspaper article" isn't that what the standards are promoting as good wiki-page writing?--Wowaconia 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedic tone 

message: I just added this section to Goode's bio about his letter to constituents re: the Koran.  Just thought I'd point that out so this article's contributors can decide how to incorporate that info.  Cheers, Postdlf 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by U.S. Congressman [[Virgil Goode]] 

message: Many Jews find the pharase "Old Testament" to describe their scriptures as offensive. Especially in light of the writings atrriuted to Paul of Tarsus 
*Heb 8:6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
Many Jews say that their YHWH (or Hashem as they would say) is perfect, got it right the first time and never required a New Testament. They call these Hebrew Scriptures the Tanakh and so when talking about Jews using non-Christian Scriptures the term Old Testament is a pejoritive. Prager does not feel this way but the elected officials using these Hebrew Scriptures do, so the word Tanakh should be used.--Wowaconia 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many Jews insist on Tanakh not OLD Testament 

message: The following lines are in error:
:"It is noteworthy that the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament within it, in addition to other works deemed non-canon by Judaism.  The fact that the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament, and that they are essentially the same text, only with an "addendum" so to say, of additional works deemed by Christianity to be canon, makes it a far cry from attempting to compare the Christian Bible with the Koran, which, in its entirety, is a completely foreign text, considered non-canon according to both Judaism and Christianity."
::This is mistaken as the Jews reject the Christian Scriptures and if a group such as "Jews for Jesus" holds them to be inspired they are viewed as removing themselves from Judaism, i.e. heretics.
:"The relationship of the Mormon scriptures to the Christian Bible can be said to be analogous to the relationship of the Christian Bible itself to the Old Testament."
::This is not true the Mormons hold that the Book of Mormon is a testimony to the North American works of Jesus and their other two gods (they do not believe in a triune godhead; 3 in 1). Jews see the Christian Scriptures called "The New Testament" as false, Mormons see the Christian Bible as wholly true. Therefore the anaolgy is wrong. Since the Christian work which is called "The Old Testament" is based on the Greek translation called the Septuiguint many Jews see this as a twisted mockery of the original Hebrew where the very Hebrew letters have mystical meaning and are commented on in the Talmud.Wowaconia 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...inasmuch as it is correctly translated". Mormons do not believe the current bible is correctly translated, but Joseph Smith never got arround to "correctly" translating it. Were the book of mormon deviates from traditional Christian teachings, they say that that section of the Bible was not correctly translated. So to affirm that Mormons believe the Bible is true, is misleading. -- Dullfig 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What point are you trying to make?  The Christian Bible consists of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, just like the the Mormon sacred cannon consists of the Christian Bible and the Book of Mormon.  Your point about the authenticity of different translations, is minutiae  that doesn't detract from the soundness of the analogy.Ggrzw (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Jews "New Testament" is not an addendum, its heresy 

message: The articl had said that some Protestants see the Deutrocanical books of the Catholics as apocrypha and "profane" but this was changed to saying that they see them as "non-canonical".
Profane means not holy, which carries a judgement and implies rejection and possibly disgust. 
I'll switch it to this ref http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm which has headings like "21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired" and makes claims like "The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection", "The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship", "It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation", and "forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament".
The article on the Quran oath controversy is about the strong feelings people have over someone not using scriptures they approve, so pointing out that JFK used a book that contained parts most of the officials in history would have seen as unholy is analogous to the current situation. The phrase "non-canonical" makes it seem like a dry academic debate instead of something people have argued angrily over throughout most of history. I will therefore change "non-canonical" to a quote from the above website so it has a ref.Wowaconia 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I'm thinking that we should just remove those two sentences. In the context of this article, what's the point about the bible Kennedy used? SlowJog (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocrypha: profane vs. non-canonical 

message: I'm normally very lenient in my personal views about notability (i.e., I tend to argue that there should be a low threshhold for notability before a topic is considered appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia). With this article, though, I find myself tending toward the other side. That is, I think this article as written tends to elevate this particular topic beyond what its inherent notability would justify.
While the material in the article, taken sentence by sentence, seems to be presented in a suitably neutral manner, the overall sense that I get is that a series of over-the-top statements, mostly by a single conservative commentator, are being showcased in a manner that tends to inflate their importance beyond what an NPOV encyclopedia article should be doing.
I got this feeling a few weeks ago, when the article was much smaller, but with the length that the article has grown to, even to the point of now having spin-off articles, I think this problem is getting worse. Again, it's not the individual statements in the article that have a POV problem, as much as the overall selection of material.
I could see this topic getting three or four paragraphs, including suitable coverage of those who have been critical of Prager's remarks. As it stands, though, this article reads like the sort of thing Prager himself might wish for, in terms of extending and showcasing the "controversy" he seeks to raise about Ellison's Quaran statement.
I don't doubt the good faith of the individual who has made virtually all the edits in the article up to this point. But I think the article is overdue for some major condensing and balancing, and would benefit from some additional users' editorial perspectives. -- John Callender 22:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say that I share this concern. I got no such impression from reading the whole thing. I was interested in the responses and the evolution of the issue. I don't think the article overplays it. If you really think it does, why don't you make a copy of it at User:John Callender/Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress and prune it to your liking, notify the other users on this talk page when you're done, and we can compare the possibilities. But you might want to wait and see if anyone else at all is sympathetic to your general proposal before you take the time to do that work. I'm not. — coelacan talk — 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you think that something like Heim theory should deserve only a very brief article, since a lot of scientists call it "crackpottery"? It really comes down to the amount of verifiable material, however since that is defined as the "primary criterion" for notability (more specifically the amount of good (ie. reliable) verifiable material), I suppose you could call it a "notability problem", but once sufficient coverage is found to aestablish notability, then figuriung out how to arrange all the publications, etc. is decided with the policy on WP:Undue weight, not notability, at least not the type you seem to be referring to. That policy is not so much related to the absolute notability (what WP:N determines) of the subject in itself, as it is to the relative notability or significance of the various viewpoints on it (although the absolute notability can determine how much reliable, verifiable material is available for documenting the topic.). For example, if we have viewpoints A, B, C on subject X, then if viewpoint A is more prominent than viewpoint B then we give viewpoint A more coverage. If viewpoint C is bigger still then we give it even more coverage, etc. We could of course cover viewpoint A more in an article devoted to it, however the theoretical max amount of coverage on any view, of course, wherever it is put, is limited by the amount of available verifiable information. 70.101.147.224 05:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting POV problem 

message: As the article mentions in the Oath Ceremonies section, holy books aren't used in the official Congressional swearing-in, but only at private ceremonies after the fact. I think this fact should be briefly mentioned in the intro section rather than just buried deep in the article. As the article is currently framed, readers may read through the article for quite some time before they realize that the use of holy books is a private thing rather than an official act. Readers may even stop before they reach that point. I think it's important to briefly outline the key facts, such as holy books not being part of the official oath, up front. It makes a difference in perception. As is, readers may think that Ellison is trying to disrupt the status quo, rather than that Praegar is trying to impose his own beliefs on Ellison's private ceremony. If the article is about the controversy (rather than about Praeger's opinion) then the major facts, such as the use of holy books should be briefly summarized in the intro. --JamesAM 17:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presented with the fact that all members of the House officially swear in (or affirm) en masse without the use of any religious text and that such works are only used in ceremonial reenactments afterwards, Prager stated “that’s the whole point: it’s exactly because it’s ceremonial that it matters”." --Wowaconia 19:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Requirement of Holy Book

message: someone has added the following section, i thinks it is vandalism since it is not linked to the subject therefore, i am reverting to the previous version --Don Qad 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Would be interesting to know more about that, should the information arise. Шизомби 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, thanks.  I don't know if there's an article here were any of that could go, although a note about Jefferson's purchase of Sale's edition could probably go in Sale's article, which is just a stub. Шизомби 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson's marginalia

message: An editor seeking to shorten the title sought to move this article under a page named Keith Ellison Qur'an controversy. The problem with this is that both Prager and Ellison claim that their would be no controversy if the other person had not made it into a controversy. Therfor to associate only Ellison's name with the controversy will be seen as POV against Ellison. To expand it to Prager, Goode, and Ellison quran controversy will not shorten but lengthen the title, as their were multiple Federal Legislators who made comments on this subject it is an event that effected the entire 110th Congress so though the name may be long it is more apt and has NPOV.--Wowaconia 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can not be moved to a page with any participants name in it as will be seen as POV 

message: As the photo is actually the heart of the controversy I think it should be as large as posssible. I would argue that as the table of contents is so long and there is a massive blank spot next to it, this should be filled by the photo. Why leave all that blank area to scroll through with nothing in it?--Wowaconia 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizing the reenactment photo. 

message: prolly should cut down.
Please see the wiki-guideline at
Wikipedia:What is a good article?
:(emphasis added)"What is a good article?
:A good article has the following attributes.
:...
:6) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
::(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions; 
::(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. 
::(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale"
If you are saying that there are pictures that are included that are unneccessary because they "fail to illustrate the topic" please disscuss.
::Cheers--Wowaconia 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  way too many images. 

message: The images of "Mein Kampf" and of the "9/11 attacks" do not illustrate the topic. First, these images have more to do with Dennis Prager than with Keith Ellison, as these images were pertaining to Dennis Prager's statements and not Ellison's. Secondly, what association does Keith Ellison have with "Mein Kampf" and 9/11?...None of course. 
It appears that these images were put here deliberately to create a visual association between Keith Ellison, Hitler and the 9/11 attacks. Ramaw 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prager may have wanted to use these images, but we don;'t have to. Just as we can quote Prager's words without reprinting his whole speech, we can remove these images.  Is there, in fact, any evidence that Prager actually used these images in his campaign against Ellison?  Or did he just talk about the topics? If he just talked about it, it's escalating his attack to use the images. Even if he did, they are not appropriate here. I don't want to start another round of reverting, but I'm coming here from outside, and this is not reasonable POVDGG 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should mention that I read the pictures as discrediting Prager, not Ellison-=-as demonstrating the unfare nature of Prager 's rhetoric. If he did not use the actual pictures, then then exagerate it rather than demonstrate it fairly. 
DGG 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On inclusion of images of Mein Kampf and 9/11

message: This article contains several references to Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) being a Buddhist. Actually, while she was raised Buddhist, she says she does not practice the religion.    -- Teditor 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Wowaconia 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: --Teditor 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Wowaconia 03:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken references to Rep. Hirono 

message: This is gigantic, and all over a tempest in a teapot.  It could easily be reduced to a paragraph in some other article.142.232.98.112 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is This Article Necessary? 

message: :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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Wikipedical (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Removed the new black panther response.  It is clearly used for WP:POINTY purposes.  The New Black Panther party is a small fringe group with no notability.  Including their position on anything in any article gives their opinion WP:UNDUE weight. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malik Zulu Shabazz 

message: The article is a mess. It is too long and contains much superfluous information.  The article should not serve as a catalog for every editorial piece that has been written about the controversy.  Especially not that the event is a thing of the past, it should probably be cut up.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed many sections in the article that were superfluous.  There were (are) many sections where a single sentence would have sufficed. More cleaning up is required. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070128040659/http://blogs.usatoday.com:80/ondeadline/2006/12/quran_controver.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/quran_controver.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927131155/http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2007/Jan/984.html to http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2007/Jan/984.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. 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/20081211214050/http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=11041812060944420 to http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=11041812060944420
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192272498
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) 13:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As of December 2017 it appears it is still Mark Dimunation. If it ever changes we will need to update this article. Should probably check this link once a year or so:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/rarebook/contact.html
©Geni (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Chief of the Rare Book and Special Collections Division

message: This section provides a primary quote from Prager ("tradition that has been unbroken since George Washington") and then provides several apparent counterexamples to his claim. To avoid violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN, we need a reliable secondary source which makes this point. I cannot find one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:OR and WP:SYN in Use of other text section