Talk:Keith Ellison/Archive 1

message: *Ellison’s father was a physiatrist and his mother was a social worker.
psychiatrist? physician? I don't know, someone else should correct this. Torgo 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, done. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like physciatrist is right, but fyi Physiatry is a real branch of medicine. Deborah-jl
Nation of Islam "Muslims" should be clearly noted as being such when the word Muslims is used as the majority of Muslims including Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufis do not recognize Nation of Islam as a religion but more of a political movement twisting the basic principles of Islam to suit their own agenda.
* Sign your comments, please, with ~~~~ Rob C (Alarob) 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: Alan Cooperman says, writing in today's Washington Post, 
:"The first article defended Farrakhan against accusations of anti-Semitism. The second called affirmative action a "sneaky" form of compensation for slavery, suggesting instead that white Americans pay reparations to blacks."
Patrick Condon wrote, on Wed, Jul. 05, 2006 
:"One column defended Farrakhan against charges of anti-Semitism; a second suggested the creation of a state for black residents. In 1995, Ellison helped organize a delegation to Farrakhan's Million Man March in Washington."
Tom Harrison Talk 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter can only be included if it has been published in a reliable source. In this case, that might include Ellison's campaign website, or a press release. Then we could attribute it to him or his campaign. A blog would not do as a source, unless it's Ellison's blog. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with Tom's take on the inclusion of the letter. As a conservative, I would like nothing better than to include it, but any negative information about a living person must be solidly sourced by sources that meet WP:RS, per WP:BLP. Blogs are not generally considered reliable, particularly on BLP issues, unless it is the subject's own blog, and that can be verified. Crockspot 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-Semitism" 

message: Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people applies to all living people. We can't include uncited material about Representative Ellison, or about his political opponents, or anyone else. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of living people 

message: Please compare this page with the page for Alan Fine the Republican candidate for this race - this page is turning non partisan - and should be a biographical account of Keith Ellison - there is no evidence he was a member of Nation of Islam - and if we use things in this article which are partisan why are they not being used in the other article. Alan Fine made two stinging attacks on Ellison n which a lot of local newspapers are condemning as extremist. I see no mention of this on Alan Fine's page. This is a living person and a biography and I feel we are overstepping the POV line here.
Ellison was never a member of the Nation of Islam, nor did he use Anti Semitic comments, I have removed the references to this and also the reference to the Gubernatorial candidates backing Ellison as this is a biography about the person, and I am following suit with the Fine article and ensuing fair play. 
Where were the equating comments about Keith Ellison when he attacked Arlon Lindner the Republican who denied the Holocaust. Keith Ellison condemned Lindner. Ellison is also very supportive of gay marriage. The equation that he is a racist, homophobe which is implied in the comments on this page are a totally subjective POV. There was no mention of his acceptance speech which had people of all religions, colors, races, ages, and the theme was love and peace.
Rej4sl—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rej4sl (talk • contribs) .
:Alan Fine is best discussed at Talk:Alan Fine. Where do we say that Ellison was a member of the nation of Islam, or made anti-Semitic comments? Finally, I'm not sure a political speech in praise of love and peace is entirely notworthy. Tom Harrison Talk 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, where do we say that Ellison was a member of the nation of Islam, or that he made anti-Semitic comments? Tom Harrison Talk 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would point out that the overwhelming content of this pievce is focused on guilt-by-association accusations leveled against Ellison by partisan opponents, which, although vaguely supported by the links, hardly seems neutral at all. Astro Zombie  14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View

message: 
This article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons
Rej4sl 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I cannot personally vouch for anything in this article, but it seems to me most of the assertions are documented with citations. Appraiser 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, please don't be paranoid and assume anyone has anything against Muslims or African Americans.  There is nothing in Islam that says that anyone has to defend someone a hate-inciting person like Farakan.  Unfortunately, it is an honest concern about this guy.  He needs to be given a chance, but this article should not be censored to take out anything about his past that might be concerning.  Elizmr 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine.  It is all part of the record.  He defended Farakan, he later apologized.  Apologizing doesn't make it go away, and it should stay in the article along with the apology.  He is a servant of the people and the people have a right to know his history, don't they?  Elizmr 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  totally disputed 

message: Dlz28 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are a number of doubled footnotes. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. As contentious as this article has been, given the controversies around this man, we must continue to demand good sources and citations. Jonathunder 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Problem is (as discussed in the next section) about half the article is under the heading Controversies. The election is over, so perhaps we can now write a biography in the tone appropriate to an encyclopedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of Sources section

message: I have removed the blog material in concordance with Wiki policy - It keeps being reinserted by a user who on his talk page has been warned about this kind of thing.. I am getting fed up of deleting it and it being reverted back by the same user
Can an administrator look into this
Rej4sl 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly hope the article is NPOV! If reliable sources note that republicans are associated with CAIR, then write about it in their biographies. I agree that blogs shouldn't be cited, but article text that cites reliable sources shouldn't be removed. Andjam 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The information being deleted is sourced from newspapers and not from blogs. (SEWilco 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of blog material 

message: It is from blogs - powerline and Keith Ellison for Dummies as per the references - blogs are not permitted on WP
Rej4sl 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look again at what you're deleting.  The text is based on the content of newspaper articles and Ellison's own letter, not from whatever text is in Keith Ellison for Dummies.  (SEWilco 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi guys, we need to quote from the original sources and not from the blogs quoting the orig sources.  If we are quoting the orig sources, the cites need to stay and if anyone takes them out they will be reverted.  Elizmr 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blogs 

message: I put election details at the bottom of the article taking them out of the lead.  They seem irrlevant there now.  Also, I gave religion its own section at the end of "life" and put the post election video there as it does not belong in the controversy secton as someone said above.  Elizmr 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: post election reorg

message: I did a major clean up and condensation of the nation of islam section.  I put everything in chronological order.  If anyone adds anything there, please note that the order is now chronological.
:Someone reverted a lot of what I did. Please note that I did not delete anything, I just arranged it chronologically.  It is not a whitewash.  I put back my version.  Please explain before undoing hard work, OK?  Elizmr 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation of Islam section

message: Does anyone know what kind of Islam Ellison converted into and what kind of Islam he practices now?  Could anyone add more details about his accomplishments and projects?  The article seems very balanced towards controversy.  While that needs to stay, it seems important to balance the article.  Elizmr 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: needed info

message: I deleted the parking tickets, taxes and the thing about the lawsuit with former employee as attacking, overly personal, and irrelevant.  They are still in former versions if people feel they need to be in there.  Also, I took out the sentence about gays and lesbians in the holocaust.  It was completely irrelevant to the seection.  If anyone wanted to write a section on Ellison's support of the GLBT community, it would be appropriate there and the sentence is still in the archives.  Elizmr 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if a great deal of well-sourced material is removed to make the article a whitewash, no. It is a fact of the man's life that he has had legal problems and other controversies. Pretend for a moment the article is about someone in a different political party, or of a different faith, but was elected to Congress with this record of not paying fines and taxes. You might reasonably object to that being taken out, and I do. Jonathunder 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fair enough, but the thing about the woman is over the top I think.  Can we take that out?  Elizmr 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it over the top? Lots of politicians have such accusations noted in their articles, and, like it or not, they're relevant in American politics. Kairos 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sort of a "he said, she said" kind of a thing which doesn't really say anything specific about him.  I am not saying it has to go, it just doesn't seem very notable.  I was trying to get the tag off the article and thought this deletion would help.  Elizmr 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless or until the section regarding Amy Alexander has more substantiation, I would agree it could go. If the rest of the article is well-sourced and not tenditiously written (one way or the other), let's remove the tags, too. Jonathunder 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, parts of his personal life are in the article (he is married, has children, etc.) but since this whole section was not well-substantiated or clear, I agree it can be removed on that basis. Jonathunder 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the standard biographical details are different from stuff about afairs, jobs and restraining orders, but thanks for agreeing to remove it.  Elizmr 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: Do not link sites hosting copyrighted content that doesn't belong to them. This is what makes the blog link doubly un-useable. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I think it's useless to play the silly little edit/revert game, as it seems Keith's partisans are reigning like tyrants over this article. This is the reason why more and more people, do not take Wikipedia seriously anymore. It has become a political, ideological and religious platform and battleground for every zealot under the sun. Now the purpose of this encyclopedia is no more informing the reader, but putting what the editor judges to be the right thing. So we have people here who decide what is relevant and what is not, what people should read and what they should not read, and the list goes on. 
When I have time, I will try to contact some of our repuatble administrators to clean this mess up, and restore the objectivity and neutrality this encyclopedia is supposed to champion.
Vincent_shooter  10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zealous partiality 

message: Why on earth are blogs allowed as sources on this biography - I remove them as per Wiki policy and they keep being reverted - so  I think why am I wasting my time - anyone who clicks on the links can see they are hosted by powerlineblog - this article is biased and been taken over by people who have no idea what neutrality means.
For the record I am not a supporter of Keith Ellison, nor am I a Democrat nor a Republican. I am just someone interested in politics and shocked to see that someone's reputation can be tarred so much by an article on Wikipedia.
I read that controversies were allowed on biographies as long as they did not take over the article - it seems that 90% of this article is controversies from disreputable sources.
Note
Blogs are not supposed to be allowed - but they are on this biography for some reason
Opinion is supposed to be neutral but most of the comments on here come from right wing blogs or from conservative speakers in the Star Tribune - note that an opinion piece in a newspaper is not based on fact nor is it substantiated.
I honestly believe this article should a)be deleted or b)protected until it is neutral point of view. If the neutral tags are removed I will be astonished.
Rej4sl 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rej4sl - Please let us know what specific statements in the article you object to. The article has a host of reliable sources, including many news articles. Which things, specifically, are you saying are not sourced and not true? Jonathunder 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia - dumbed down 

message: The phrase "Allah Ahkbar" was shouted, but I don't think it should be mentioned in the article. Here's why:
The citation given is basically a primary source. We ought to be citing a secondary source which discusses whether saying "Allah Ahkbar" is noteworthy. Some bloggers regard it as noteworthy, but a google news search suggests that mainstream media aren't particularly interested. this google news search for Keith Ellison and Allah only got five hits.
* Congress' first Muslim can build bridges - a false hit - the Allah wasn't to do with Allah Ahkbar.
* an opinion piece in apparently a Bible prophecy web site - not a very notable source.
* Fifth, Sixth Districts: Close, but so far away - Allah wasn't to do with Allah Ahkbar.
* a letter to the editor at the star tribune. Letters to the editors aren't very notable or reliable.
* "Muslims: as unique as you and me" - the article has disappeared, but doesn't seem to be mentioning Allah Ahkbar.
We should leave interpreting statements like "Allah Ahkbar" to reliable sources, rather than arguing about it amongst ourselves. Thanks, Andjam 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ok to cite a primary source WP:RS.  It is presented neutrally in the article.  An encyclopedia should contain more than the MSM.  Elizmr 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allah Ahkbar and secondary sources 

message: The article has 
:On Nov. 14, 2006 a monitor of Jihadists Web sites linked to Al Qaeda reported that "terrorists don't think much of Keith Ellison. One called him the first Jewish Muslim in Congress.
I had a look at the citation, and the header of the article said "Friday night, Don wondered what jihadists would think about the election of the nation's first Muslim to Congress, Minnesotan Keith Ellison. Tonight, Don says, we have the answer." The article suggests that last Friday he didn't know much about what the jihadists thought about Ellison. Either the Jihadists hadn't said much about Ellison before the Friday (unlikely), or that he isn't a regular "monitor of Jihadists Web sites" Also, Don Shelby doesn't seem to mention him being an expert on jihad either. Any thoughts? Andjam 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: weird non-notable quote imoElizmr 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shelby is a local TV news anchor man.  Celebrity figures should not be assumed to have expertise merely due to having a recognizable face.  He could be quoted as speaking the news from WCCO TV, or for an opinion.  (SEWilco 06:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is currently labeled "Al-Queda"  (sorry, sp) is misleading.  It is actually an editorial by Don Shelby that the paragraph links to and not the "Jihadist Web site" spots.  Does anyone have links to the originial Jihadist Web site spots?  Elizmr 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tried to fix it.  I combined it with the Glenn Beck piece because both are dealing with the question of how KE feels about radical Islam and vice versa.   I put a new section heading on them, and made it clear that we were not reporting the content that appeared on a radical Islamist Web site or two but rather the content of a TV editorial which was absent from the text.  I tried to get the content of the 'Jihadist web site" but when I went it was only in Arabic and I can't read it.  It looked like it required registration, so I couldn't even search to see if Ellison's picture or name appears anywhere.  Elizmr 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Found a UPI story with same quotes & better source info, added it to the segment. Seems to eliminate problems cited above.--Wowaconia 13:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of Don Shelby 

message: During his victory speech, Ellison said, "God is good, y'all," and some of his supporters cried out "Allahu akbar" (Arabic for "God is great").
This is a bit misleading. I watched the video and it sounded like two or three voices max. That sounds like "a couple" not "some of his supporters". He did win by a landslide. But how is this relevant to the subject of this article anyway? Would it be included if someone had shouted "amen" or "hallelujah"? --75.72.161.204 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it doesn't seem especially notable.  Do we even know that the people who shouted it were his supporters, and not opponents who were doing it ironically?  Either seems possible, neither seems notable.  I'm more curious about Ellison's specific religious affiliation. Шизомби 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not that I doubt that some people said it, but that it seems terribly trivial to be included in an encyclopedia entry.  As you say, it "doesn't really imply much," so what does it add?  Шизомби 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It documents the victory celebration of the first Muslim elected to the US congress.  Why isn't that encyclopedic?  It is historic, actually.  Elizmr 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be used against him by some, perhaps many... and I suspect that bringing it up here would be in furtherance of that goal. Wahkeenah 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it? With all due respect, I think this is a little paranoid.  I would like to see more links out to TV spots documenting reallife events in Wikipedia.  It is a great functionality of this type of encylcopedia over text encyclopedias--why not take advangtage of it???? Elizmr 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any personal problem with someone saying "God is great" in Arabic, but that expression does scare a lot of other Americans because they've heard Saddam Hussein and a host of other middle eastern Islamic leaders and fighting men saying or yelling it. So by connecting it with Ellison, it's a "label" of sorts. Keeping such expressions in their native language adds to their negative-propaganda value. Consider some of the World War II phraseology, such as "Sieg heil", which simply means "Hail victory", but sounded more sinister when kept in the native German. Similarly, notice how whenever a Muslim speaks of God, they always quote him as saying "Allah", not "God". As I understand it, those words mean basically the same thing. But by continuing to say "Allah", the subtle message to the American Christian is that the God of Islam is not the "real" God, i.e the "Christian God". Wahkeenah 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am am American too.  The way to fight bigotry is not to hide what one is but to show it.  Elizmr 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you. As I see it, the only purpose of citing the supposed fact that someone yelled that phrase is to make a thing out of him being Islamic. Obviously, that wasn't a significant problem for my district, who were mostly concerned about holding onto the Democratic House seat. But to many Americans, that phrase automatically carries anti-American baggage. Wahkeenah 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I reworked the sentence. 1- There is a problem using the term "supporters" when that is not known (though likely). 2- "Some supporters" is too vague for what sounded like loud shouting from a couple people. 3- I think the wiki link to takbir is enough, so I removed the English explanation. The sentence was getting too long. --75.72.161.204 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Anon's explanation completely implausible.  It should be in.  Elizmr 11:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to describe your interpretation of the event, when you can describe the event itself accurately and without any vagaries. To everyone who doesn't watch the video, they are going to read "some of his supporters shouted allahu akbar" - what like half of them? This sentence is flawed and it doesn't have to be. But it seems some want it that way. --75.72.161.204 14:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot. It's "responded with cries of Allahu akbar". How is language neutral? "Cries"? Come on. --75.72.161.204 14:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that "shouted" captures it better becuase they do say it loudly in a celebratory way.  Are we ok with this?  Elizmr 23:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems fine. As with the alleged domestic dispute, that bit of news will probably disappear over time, unless a pattern emerges. Wahkeenah 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allahu akbar

message: Since this wiki article is a biography of a living person it is by definition bound to change. Currently this info about her allegations is worthy of inclusion because it is current news about an allegation that surfaced in the media during Ellison's campaign (see all the references). As her case has been ruled groundless this info will lose relevance as a few months go by and should be dropped then. Right now readers familiar with the case but not the outcome will find the info useful. The nameless editor that deleted the info claimed it is a case of "he said she said" if they would have read the segment they would see that is not the case. The courts have declared it is a case of her being wrong and Ellison being freed of any culpability on this issue. Currently its wiki-worthy in a few months it will be less than a footnote and should be dropped then.--Wowaconia 23:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the court had "ruled groundless" these accusations, that is a good reason they don't belong here. What the court did do, of course, was found the burden of proof required for an order for protection had not been met. Hence, it makes even less sense to burden the article with this. Wikipedia is not a blog; it's an encyclopedia. Leave it out. User:65.120.15.226 00:04, 22 November 2006 and 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the segment and look at its sources? I am not posting from a blog (nor am I trying to create a blog), I'm citing established Minnesota newspapers and the Associated Press. Click on the references!!! Look at my previous statement on this thread - this is current news and in a little while it will not be relevent but it is relevant now - look at wiki standards under WP:LIVING. And why aren't you signing your discussion statements or logging in to edit? Please do so to avoid the appearance of vandalism.--Wowaconia 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the "current event" tag should be re-added, as kind of a "fudge factor" against this discussion. P.S. I'm not the IP address, I just added that info as FYI. Wahkeenah 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At a minimum there should be mention that during the 2006 campaign there were allegations made which a judge later ruled against.  Keep all the links to the sources in case the issue reappears.  The judge already considered that the issue might reappear during the 2008 election.  (SEWilco 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the living persons policy, these unsubstantiated allegations just don't belong in a bio article. Jonathunder 14:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading it, it looks like it's nothing. If a pattern emerges, that might be more important. But if someone adds it back, maybe they can at least fix the grammar. Yuch. Wahkeenah 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. …Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. 
Lets look at the standards above concerning the segment “Alexander’s Allegations”. First they were reported by the Minneapolis StarTribune in several articles and an article in USA Today. These sources are all cited in the segment as per wiki-standards. The outcome of the case was reported by several sources, the one originally cited is from Forbes Magazine who printed the Associated Press story, other papers that ran the same story by the AP are The Dunton Springs Evening PostRetrieved on Nov. 22, 2006; The Houston Chronicle  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4349573.html; Fox News  http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov20/0,4670,MuslimCandidate,00.html The Seattle Post Intelligencer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Muslim_Candidate.html; The Minnesota ABC affiliate KSTP  http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20144.html?cat=1
The Lacross Tribune  http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2006/11/21/mn/2minn.txt The Winona Daily News  http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2006/11/21/mn/2minn.txt. I found over 70 newspapers across the United States who judged this AP story newsworthy and ran it.
The AP story was also deemed newsworthy internationally. It was picked up by France’s International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/20/america/NA_POL_US_Muslim_Candidate.php;
by Canada’s Ottawa Recorder http://www.newsone.ca/ottawarecorder/ViewArticle.aspx?id=27802&source=2; Canada’s Westfall Weekly Newshttp://www.newsone.ca/westfallweeklynews/ViewArticle.aspx?id=27802&source=2; Canada’s Hinesberg Journal  http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/ViewArticle.aspx?id=27802&source=2; and Canada’s Pierceland Herald  http://www.newsone.ca/piercelandherald/ViewArticle.aspx?id=27802&source=2; Australia’s Path Publishing Group magazine “Leading the Charge” also ran the story  http://www.leadingthecharge.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=27802&source=2.
I have also added the citation of The Columbus Ledger & Enquirer in the segment, they print the story as reported by Rochelle Olson. This version also ran in the Minneapolis Star Tribune Retrieved on Nov. 22, 2006.
I am not advocating this segment about Alexander be left permanently in this wiki-article, and I would willingly discuss when it should be dropped – say when Ellison is sworn in at DC with the rest of the House in January. It does not seem unreasonable to post information about Ellison that newspapers across America and ACROSS THE PLANET found newsworthy. It is a fact that Ellison had his attorney at the court and the court found for Ellison. He put effort into this and he prevailed, his accusers where found meritless. How is this not about him? Where do you see any bias on my part? Where do you see any wiki-standards being violated? I agreed with the comment about the grammar choices being in error including a misspelling of the word “allegations” -  I have endeavored to correct that and thank you for pointing it out.--Wowaconia 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure the mainstream media always shows the best judegement about what to cover and concentrate on.  I am not sure this is important enough to be on a bio page and will weigh in with that comment  Elizmr 23:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander's Allegations 

message: Where do you get that "Sabo made several appearances with Independence candidate Tammy Lee"? all the references say is that he let her use his picture with him in her campaign literature and her website. If he showed up with her in her campaign that needs its own citation or the sentence needs to be changed.
::As I could find no refs that said Sabo appeared with Lee, I changed it to what the refs we have say - that he let her use his picture.--Wowaconia 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabo 

message: I have removed the "controversy" section on Ellison planning to take the oath of offlice on the Koran. Unlike the other controversy sections, which were well documented as major issues, such as his failure to pay taxes for some years, this is more along the lines of one guy saying stuff, and some blogs picking it up. (Haven't they read the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution?) Perhaps it will become a significant public controversy, notable enough for inclusion in a bio article, but that time is not yet. Jonathunder 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" seem to be about as clear on making someone use a particular religious item or book to take office they as could possibly be, strictly constructed. Jonathunder 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's worth including, it has even made the news in Austria today -- I think if it's notable enough to cross the Atlantic, then it's big enough to be included here. —Nightstallion (?) 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, this is not much of a controversy.  It is more about the media trying to create a controversy and scare people about Ellison than a controversy of its own right.  Elizmr 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely notable.  I've had a near-news blackout, and I managed to hear about it while passing by a radio.  However, it might be giving undue weight to the topic, as it appears to be given more space in this article than any other single topic.  Perhaps it should be revisited in a month (or as Inauguration approaches, or passes) to evaluate if this is very notable, or just a brief flare-up.  I suspect it will (and should) be eventually shortened. Ufwuct 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  "the decision by Rep.-elect Ellison to be sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible" - can anyone provide a link where Ellision has said he would be sworn in on the Koran? SuluG 19:42, 2 December 2006 (PST)
I think it's appropriate to have some mention of this, although it ends up being more about CAIR and Prager - maybe it should be moved to Prager's article.  Also No religious test clause doesn't have anything about swearing-in ceremonies, so maybe that should be expanded (or in another article).  This article is rather short on Ellison's politics - his history in the Minnesota legislature and his campaign platform for the House. Шизомби 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a tendency for bio articles to have too much about a very current event and too little about a person before the events they are most known for, but we should strive for balance. I agree this article is out of balance. If you can expand on his carreer in the state legislature, that would be helpful. Meanwhile, the controversy on using the Koran during the swearing in ceremony deserves no more than a paragraph, at most. The stuff about CAIR and Prager belongs in those articles: this article needs to focus on Ellison. Jonathunder 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you read the article and for that matter is the author trying to purposely misguide us? No, Keith Ellison has not caved in as the title states. The article is just stating the obvious fact that no one uses a real Bible or Torah during the oath only during the PR photos which was the misunderstanding that started this whole thing in the first place. At least it seems this nonsense will die down now. Gdo01 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: - Can anyone provide a link where Ellision has said he would be sworn in on the Koran prior to Prager writing his column? -- SuluG 23:00, 5 December 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.91.241 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was reported by ABC News November 11  and Star Tribune November 13  (SEWilco 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really important?  This is a secular country where we have separation of church and state.  This is a non-issue, as noted above by Gdo01.  Elizmr 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oath on Koran 

message: I removed something about another group.  It was already mentioned in another section.  If someone wants to put it back, fine, but please change the heading to reflect the content.  Elizmr 23:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cair section

message: this all seems to have more to do with prager than ellison or the us congress.  prager created a non-issue and publicized it.  for his photos, ellison was sworn in on a koran.  he's a muslim.  completely appropriate.  officially, there's no rule about being sworn in on ANY holy book since we have separation of church and state in the US.  can we PLEASE get rid of this section????  it is divisive and makes religion seem more an official part of US govt than it is.  it is misleading.  Elizmr 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I shortened this, but honestly everytime some yahoo in the media says soemthing outrageous regarding Ellison, are we going to put it in Wikipedia?  Elizmr 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Wow, I think your comments are just a tad inappropriate and overly personal.  
*1)If there is a section on this issue here, it is fine to edit and refine it and talk about it.  Please don't tell me to take it to a talk page.  It is not all that appropriate to boss people around on Wikipedia. 
*2) Why are my edits "divisive"?  That comment is a bit of an attack and not especially helpful.  Please try to spell out what you mean instead of using this kind of an attack adjective.  
*3) I don't understand why "media generated controversies" is POV.   Someone made a big deal of the fact that Ellison wanted to be "sworn in on a Koran" (which is a non-issue in this nation anyway, because we have separation of church and state--for now anyway....).  Someone made a big deal out of it.  It wasn't Ellsion, was it?  Prager saying it was Ellison doesn't make it so.  
*4) The new title is ok with me, but honestly I think we are giving these non-issues more play than they shoudl reasonably have it an enclyclopedia.  Elizmr 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason why your re-titling “Media views on Ellison” to “Media-generated controversies” is "flat-out POV" is that Prager and his supporters maintain that Ellison, by announcing his intent to the media, was generating the issue; while Ellison and his supporters say he was just telling a reporter his intentions and that it only generated attention when Prager took issue with it. To call the segment “Media-generated controversies” is to lose neutrality (the wiki-standard) and side with Ellison, it would be just as POV as saying “Ellison’s media manipulation”. Your argument for your title, that “Prager saying it was Ellison doesn't make it so” could be seen by Prager supporters as you calling him a liar so that’s not neutral and is an unconvincing argument in light of the goal of NPOV. “Media personalities and Ellison” does not give support to either side and is therefore more appropriate while eliminating the idea that the Media mentioned are part of traditional journalism (as I noted in this thread previously).Wowaconia 21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not trying to be POV, I am trying to eliminate a POV.  YOu may be right.  Please go ahead and retitle the section (if you haven't do so already).  I think this is a non-issue, but I can see you think it is really really important.  Elizmr 01:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more on prager

message: As people see Ellison's association with CAIR as controversial everything he does with them will likly be noted, and post-election activities should be placed in their own segment seperate from pre-election ones to allow a better timeline of his activities.Wowaconia 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These controversies are not in any way defined by the 2006 election.  I believe they all have to do with items of the public record that happened before the election.  By labeling them "2006 election" the implication is that they are over or were in some way election related.  Neither of these things is true.  Elizmr 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Here's why.  I think a controversy "during the 2006 election" would be something like some kind of misconduct during the election itself (say one candidate made something up about another candidate and it was revealed).  Ellison's history with the Nation of Islam may have come OUT in the 2006 election, but started when Ellison was involved with that group.  He did this himself of his own free will.  The media did not concoct it.  His opponents did not concoct this.  Apologizing does not erase this.  Nor does his electoral win by a majority of voters.   Nor does a jewish organization or two endorsing him.  The article does not say that Ellison is a member of that organization currently.  Mark well, I think Ellison is a good guy and I don't think he is a racist against jews, but that does not mean that the "ends justify the means" and this history of his should be relegated to an "election controversy".  The parking tickets and late filings are not in the same league as supporting an organizaion and individuals that engage in hate speech.  Elizmr 23:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the definition of controversy I placed in my last posting to this thread. If you can find a noted figure saying that his apology is a lie and you can claim its still a controversy and it can be placed in a segment titled such. I'm sorry but you not accepting his apology is not notable enough to call this a controversy. Not even Dennis Prager whose works you so vocally opposed stooped to saying that as a Jew he rejects Ellison's claim that this is in his past. I'm not saying Ellison's writing didn't happen, I'm not trying to bury it, I'm saying it was a controversy in 2006 and you can't have a controversy with no one on the other side. If wiki-standards were different I'd gladly post "though every politician and major political and religious group has accepted that Ellison's apology was heartfelt and true, a few obscure bloggers and a wikipedian named Elzmir are keeping the controvesy alive. On a talk-page Elzmir seemed to dismiss others who had accepted the apology, writing 'It is up to Ellison to go beyond promises and rhetoric and show by his actions that he doesn't support these past positions of his.' Ellison's only hope of convincing the entire planet seems thin, he will have to take solace in the fact that every notable on earth has accepted that his apology is real." If you can find some notable sources you might be convincing, otherwise I'm sorry. I would offer a change to your post above (my addition in brackets), "These are choices he made in the past and felt really strongly about in the past [And are part of a controversy that everyone else has consigned to the past]."Wowaconia 08:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not replying here since we have taken the discussion below.  Elizmr 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Controversies during 2006 election" segment should not be folded into a catch-all "Controversies" segment 

message: Shall we create a new page for the lengthy sections that have been created on his state senate record?  Elizmr 12:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: never mind, I shortened this to bullet points and removed the rhetoric.  If we need to include the rhetoric and politicing, let's make a new page.  This one was way too long.  Elizmr 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I took your edits and material and worked with it.  I put a lot of time into this as you did.  I did not just revert you.  Please consider working in an iterative way instead of starting an edit war.  Elizmr 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, Wow, STOP accusing me of "wiping out reams of information" 
*everything is there in the article history
*I didn't remove any references
*I didn't remove any viewpoints or positions or achievements, I just condensed.  
*Furthermore, as I've said a few times above, I explained on the talk page.  It was too heavy on the rhetoric and read like a campaign page.  
*Furthermore, I had a nice discussion with CSTAR about a particular point and we arrived at a verison #3 which I think was better than version #1 or version #2.  So why not get past this and work on the article? Elizmr 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was using "Wow" as a shorthand for your name, "Wowaconia".  I was not exclaiming.  I've aplologized many times now for taking your stuff out, esp since you spent a long time on it.  This has happened to me on other pages.  I should not have done that to you.  OK?  But still, rhetoricis an accurate description of what was there; it consisted mostly of  quotes from Ellison during his time in state gov't. It did (I'm sorry) read like campaign literature.  An article is supposed to be more than a set of quotes.  When I invited you to get back to work on the article, I didn't intend for you to think I was saying "get over it".  What I meant was if you think there are especially notable quotes that should be added to this article or issues that the short summaries don't do justice to then bring them to talk.  OK?  Again, I apologize for undoing your work.  Elizmr 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page for Minnesota record 

message: I made a few structural changes to the article.  Some of these changes were previously made and revered.  
*I put All of the Minnesota stuff in one section rather than having the 84th session in its own section
*I put the 2006 congressional election section right under Minnesota
*I put advocacy for Islamic causes under the 2006 election 
*the various controversies secitons follow as they were previously. 
I made a few content changes to the article.
*THere was a bit about other elected reps who are muslim in the 2006 election section.  It didn't belong there.  It made a nice header for the Muslim activism seciton, I thought, and I moved it there.
*I removed some local minnesota politics stuff having to do with the primary and who Sabo supported.  I think it is covered in the subarticle and is not notable enough for this main Ellison page.  
*I took out a sentence which formerly introduced Muslim activisim as OR.  I had taken this out previously as OR and it was reverted.  
*I tightened up some language in various sections without making substantive changes.
All of my edits are discussed using edit summaries.  Elizmr 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: Here is what I have put in 
Since being being elected to Congress, Ellison has beocme active on a national level in advocacy for Muslim causesNorth American Imams Federation conference bookletNorth American Imamas Federation Web site6 Muslim Imams Removed From PlaneEllison seeks meeting on removal of clerics.
I removed the clause about Ellison being active in advocacy since Law school since that was NOI and not Muslim Advocacy.  OK?  It is fair for something about this to be in the article. Elizmr 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you are saying about taking out the refs and putting in HTML.  I'm sure your idea is a good one, but I'd be more comfortable with the refs there, so people can look at them if they want.  In general, it is not a good idea to take refs out of any wikipedia article if they are good refs, as these areElizmr 17:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the lead 

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)
thread_title:  Muslim causes 

message: This is a dispute about where in the article Keith Ellison’s ties with the Nation of Islam should be discussed.
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
* Wowaconia maintains the information should be presented under the following:
:3 Controversies during 2006 election 
::3.1 Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties'''
*“this was the first time anyone took note of these writings and when he was pressed to respond to them. It was at this time that Ellison issued an apology for the remarks. It was fresh in the minds of those endorsing him who had to explain why they accepted his apology. It forced the voters to reflect on the issue and was fresh in their minds at the election.”
*“The definition of controversy is ‘a dispute where there is strong disagreement’, so applying this to Ellison's ties with the Nation of Islam, there was disagreement whether his apology was real and acceptable or not. If you can find notable people who are currently saying his apology was not real or acceptable then the issue is still a controversy - otherwise there is no active controversy and all the details should be included in ‘Controversies during 2006 election’.”
*“Several reliable media sources bunched this information with revelations of his unpaid parking tickets and late filing fees and portrayed them collectively as controversies surrounding Ellison, therefore they should be grouped together and as no media source is reporting them as still controversial they should be placed in a segment called "Controversies during 2006 election”
*"Placing Ellison’s apology alongside information about his Nation of Islam writings and the reaction to them. Does not insert a judgement on the apology, but follows chronological order."
*"The question is one of chronological context, placing it in a segment titled “Controversies” would than invite other editors to move the Beck and Prager information into that section, not necessarily in any chronological order either, if more controversies occur (such as other Congressmen having problems with his daily prayer schedule or something) than this too would go into this catch all “Controversies” section also without any chronological context. It should go between the primaries 2006 and election results 2006 information."
* Elizmr maintains the information should be presented under the following:
3 Controversies 
::3.1 Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties'''
*background point #1 Ellison's involvement with or defense of the NOI and its leadership dates from the late 1980s to the late 1990s (refs from Washington Post)
*background point #2 During his campaign for national office in 2006, Ellison apologized for his previous positions 
*concern #1 heading "Controversies of the 2006 election" should be reserved for controversies associated with the election; Ellison's involvement with the NOI completely predates the election.  
*concern #2  Labeling something as a controversy of an  election which is over trivializes it and gives the reader the impression that it is irrelevant now--this inserts POV into the article
*concern #3 Labeling the apology as a "Controversy of the 2006 election" would make the apology seem politically motivated and NOT genunie--this inserts POV into the article 
06:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Keith Ellison’s ties to the Nation of Islam.