Talk:Keith Ellison/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I changed the wording to "advocacy" hope you don't disagree.  Elizmr 01:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks.  Elizmr 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim causes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for going along with the consensus on this.  Elizmr 06:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to all those who left opinions for the Request for comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Representative vs. Representative-elect 

message: 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”. Retrieved Dec18, 2006 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’”. Retrieved on Dec. 18, 2006" Elizmr 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New info in 84th legislative session section

message: 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)
replies: text: It's probably vandalism, I've haven't heard of Ellison being a member of the NoI. GoodDay 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellison is a Sunni, is there confusion or vandalism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On non-payment of fines and taxes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opinions of other (foreign)  Muslims? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why are inflammatory quranic verses listed???? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Editing for length

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Note on archiving. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  David Barton's claims are self-published and not up to wiki-standards 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed Gang14 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  The article is really long.  It would be good to get rid of any extra fat.  Bigglove 00:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the segment "Point Of View On Important Issues" be deleted? 

message: 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)
replies: text: --Wowaconia 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  conversion details 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Interesting, thanks Tom.  Bigglove 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks to Wowaconia for removing the section from the article.  I think it reads better now.  Bigglove 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment on the  "Point of view on major issues" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why is that even a category Gang14 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamophobia category 

message: See Talk:Qur%27an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress#Requesting comments: Applicability of BLP & NPOV policy. <eleland/talkedits> 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns, request for comment on associated article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bill Sali controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New York Daily News & SITE Institute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beck Interview 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fourth representative since 1943 

message: Can you justify any of the links generated under the  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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: .85.240.20.77 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: What mainstream sources have commented on this matter, if any? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Issues and Un-Islamic Beliefs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Keith Ellison. 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:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?district=58B
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 07:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Keith Ellison. 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/20070929111544/http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS07/611190577/1009 to http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS07/611190577/1009
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210020400/http://kstp.dayport.com:80/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=168557 to http://kstp.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=168557
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021110608/http://www.startribune.com/587/story/923881.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/923881.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1276950.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/wa03_baird/morenews1/GazaTrip.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071023110829/http://www.startribune.com/10120/story/724880.html to http://www.startribune.com/10120/story/724880.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 11:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Keith Ellison. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20071114231556/http://www.startribune.com:80/587/story/819861.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/819861.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071025083937/http://www.startribune.com/562/story/754239.html to http://www.startribune.com/562/story/754239.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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</br>
Why the Democrats Need Keith Ellison</br>
The candidate for DNC chairman wants to lead an anti-Trump resistance, not search for areas of cooperation.</br>
By Michelle Goldberg </br>
Slate</br>
Nov. 15 2016</br>
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)
replies: text: *Added a brief section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103224726/http://www.keithellison.org/StribOpEd.htm to http://www.keithellison.org/StribOpEd.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041021140701/http://www.aiartists.com/wmcglaughlin/reviews.html to http://liveweb.archive.org/http:/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1036906.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822060601/http://www.onenewsnow.com:80/2007/08/Idaho_congressman_disturbed_by.php to http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/08/idaho_congressman_disturbed_by.php
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) 09:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/19/14322998/keith-ellison-dnc-ezra-klein
 czar 23:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on DNC plans 

message: 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)
thread_title: Added Endorsements for Ellison for DNC Chair

message: Paging  and 
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)
replies: text: I suppose the fundamental question to  and  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Paging  and  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "these changes which contain negative contentious claims"