Talk:Keith Ellison (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Keith Ellison (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, public relations manipulation, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. More information: Democratic candidate with some controversy about his past
Use only on talk pages, in conjunction with {{WPBiography|living=yes}} or {{blp}}.


Contents

[edit] Error

  • 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)

Thanks, done. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] African-American Politicians

Shouldn't he be placed in this category too? jcm 9/12/6


[edit] "Anti-Semitism"

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)

If there is a published letter that we can cite, that would be great. Tom Harrison Talk 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom, here is a link to the actual letter http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/keithellisonletterto%20JCRC.pdf. Thanks for your help. Your continued direction and advice would be appreciated.

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)
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)

[edit] Biographies of living people

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)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

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)

You seem to ignore my comments - this article is not NPOV - it needs to balance the comments about his alleged involvement with the Nation of Islam with his condemnations of Holocaust revisionism, and his positive comments regarding gay marriage. All I ask for his balance - this article is too one sided. Rej4sl (talk

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)

I have removed the NPOV Rej4sl (talk

Seems that we have struck a good balance! The process has worked well. At least for now...I'd imagine that this article will change a lot in the next week or so...V105memorial Talk

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)

[edit] David Strom

removed items quoted from this blog - as not WP


[edit] Link to CAIR Criticism

You people are missing the boat. It should be linked later because to do do it where you want it, it implies that the link is related to Tammy Lee's criticsm.

[edit] Wikipedia used as a Campaign platform

This page is full of baseless allegations intended for poltical gain rather than informative purpouses. The lock MUST be removed because the neutrality of this article is in question.

[edit] totally disputed

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

This article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons

Rej4sl 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • 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)

I concur that this article is biased. The subject's Muslim faith seems to attract bias and prejudice. His being African-American only adds to the mix. I ask editors to scrutinize their sources with care. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

This article is a better biography today - It just seemed like a campaign article before - a lot of the information was not sourced properly and came from unreliable sources like Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune who is a conservative opinion piece in the paper - her sources are often unreliable and do not need to be fact checked like an article - I am not against controversies in the article but put them in context and not overtake the article like a campaign leaflet .. Keith Ellison made mistakes and apologized for them and this has been accepted by a large section of the Jewish community - he has fought against holocaust revisionism in the MN house - his past actions he regrets .. we all make mistakes..

Rej4sl 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Note: Blogs are not allowed sources. Can an interested party remove them? If not I will remove them and place {{fact}} templates instead. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this page is actually pretty tricky to understand, may I suggest clearing it up a bit? The information is a little disjointed - and a lot of the quotes are too close together and confusing - so Keith Ellison claimed that Louis Farrakhan was not an anti-Semite, but was actually proven wrong when it turned out that Lous Farrakhan actually was an anti-Semite - and did something similar happen with Joanne Jackson? This "we (who's "we"? Keith Ellison? The Minneapolis-St. Paul Study Group of the Nations of Islam?) support Ms. Jackson: She is correct about Minister Farrakhan. He is not a racist. He is also not an anti-Semite." comment is pretty confusing. But what did Joanne Jackson say about Louis Farrakhan? I just thought she made an anti-Semitic remark - and anyway, who is Joanne Jackson? It doesn't say anything about who she is, who she works for or her relation to Louis Farrakhan or Keith Ellison. This "we support their support of that person's supporting something else entirely" rings kind of strange to me. And the quote in the line "A 1997 Star Tribune article said 'Ellison, an attorney who used his religious name of Mohammed in speaking to the board, read a statement supporting Jackson.'"? This is all just a little too confusing to me. And also, using blogs for references probably isn't a good idea, especially about politicians. Factual information tends to go out the window. Kage 258 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =Length of Sources section

Dlz28 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Is there any way to shorten the "Sources" section? It seems to be very large in comparison the article.

Agreed. There are a number of doubled footnotes. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] removed blogs

blogs not allowed as reliable source Rej4sl 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The littlegreenfootballs link was restored; I removed it again. The description of Ellison as "CAIR Congressman" and of supporters as"scream[ing] 'Allahu Akbar!'" is highly POV. It is not intended to promote "cultural understanding" but to link Ellison to popular images of, say, the Taliban or jihadists. It does not shed light on the issues, but only adds heat. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a news clip there. It is not POV to show an actual news clip, but as a blog it is a bad source. Elizmr 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hosting a news clip that is not owned by the site is copyright violation, so it should still not be linked to. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Your're albsolutely right. I added the link to the news station itself, but it looks like it was deleted. I'll put it back. I'm assuming that is ok with you? Elizmr 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Most sources linked to are under copyright by somebody, and this is fine. If there's a source for cries of Allah akbar at his victory speech, they should be cited and linked, if possible. Jonathunder 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The video shows it happening (not that there is anything wrong with it--it was a happy moment) so I put something in the text to indicate. It was a nice speech. Elizmr 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a concern about setting a proper context for "cries of Allah[u] akbar." It is commonly assumed (in the context of the "war on terror") to be something like a war cry, or an assertion of Islamic superiority. It invokes images of jihadists, as I mentioned before. But in fact, among Muslim groups it is a sign of approval, like applause or cheers. I attended a function for an Islamic school in Alabama, and was surprised at first to hear the crowd call out "Takbeer" -- "Allahu akbar" to praise students who had won academic awards. I believe this explains the response to Keith Ellison's speech. The video of Ellison's speech, and the subsequent commentary in the newsroom, seem to put this in context.
More to the point, Ellison did not "yell 'God is great!'" He said, "God is good, y'all," and he did not raise his voice. When a volunteer yelled "Takbeer!" followed by "Allahu akbar!", Ellison did not join in and did not appear to welcome the demonstration.
I edited the relevant sentences, and corrected the Arabic phrase to "Allahu akbar."
One last comment: I feel this moment does not deserve intense scrutiny. Looking over the commentary on Ellison's campaign, I detect an almost paranoid sense that he must be hiding something, or that there's something wrong with allowing a Muslim into the halls of Congress under any circumstances. (I am not referring to WP editors, but to mass media and bloggers.) This does not represent my country at its best. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, but I also removed some editorializing remarks. This happy moment for the first Muslim in congress surely deserves mention, not over scrutiny. Americans are concerned about and involved in their political process. This does not reflect any paranoia. Elizmr 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks fine. The <!-- commented out --> sections are adding extra white space at the end of sections. Not a big deal, but noticeable. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I might add that the "happy moment" is described in a cursory manner at the end of a subsection headed Nation of Islam, which opens a section titled Controversies. Of course controversial matters should be discussed. But it appears that almost everything about Keith Ellison is being described in an overall framework stamped Controversial. I don't think this is deliberate; it may be leftover detritus from editors acting in the heat of the campaign. Still, it could be improved upon. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is in the wrong section. Elizmr 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of blog material

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)

I hope someone cleans up this article - it seems hypocritical to mention that God was mentioned at his victory speech - when you saw victory speech from other winners on CNN and MSNBC who kept thanking God and this is not made into a big deal. Second this rubbish about CAIR - Republicans accepted donations by CAIR also and the leader of CAIR has met with the President and been photographed with him. It just seems all this is to condemn Keith Ellison - but when others do the same things it is not mentioned - this biography is a blot in Wikipedia - it is not NPOV and breaks Wiki guidelines on biographies of living people. Rej4sl 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

No one is saying remove information - but this article is way over the top - it needs to be cleaned up and more encyclopedia like Rej4sl 14:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


The information being deleted is sourced from newspapers and not from blogs. (SEWilco 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC))


I ask muslim wikipedians to respect the rules and not turn this place into an activist platform. If something is backed up with a reliable source, it must stay where it is. so I restored the "allahu Akbar" incident, as there is a video that supports its accuracy. Vincent_shooter 12:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blogs

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)

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))
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)

[edit] post election reorg

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)

[edit] Nation of Islam section

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)

[edit] needed info

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)

[edit] Deletions

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)

Disputed and completely disputed tags: can we get rid of them now? Elizmr 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I removed this section. I think that Ellison's previous and current political positions and affiliations are relevant but his personal life is his own business and irrelevant. Elizmr 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Copyright

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)

[edit] Zealous partiality

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)

[edit] Wikipedia - dumbed down

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)

I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality by administrators - please do not remove this tag until this has been done. It is not sufficient for each statement to be sourced, it has to be from a reliable source - which blogs, or opinion pages are not - this is not a biography which is neutral and it does not conform to Wiki policy Rej4sl 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Jonathunder - I am talking about the references linked to Keith Ellison for Dummies and to Powerline these are blogs and not reliable sources - I have removed them and they keep being reverted - see above - other unreliable sources are candidate statements which are not based on fact but opinion, other unreliable sources are opinion pages from newspapers - I will compile a list but this is what I find unreliable about this article - legitimate sources do exist in this article - and I have no problems with any part of the article or the bringing up of any item in the article as long as it is sourced from fact and neutral sources - if all people can bring to the biography, are blogs and opinion pieces they are best left out of the article. It seems that the controversies section is based on the campaign - and maybe it can be shortened and given a section called "2006 election campaign" = and sub headers "issues raised or controversies" a lot of it is not really relevant and like I said it comes from dubious sources. A lot of the article is well written, it is just this section that is non NPOV. Rej4sl 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allah Ahkbar and secondary sources

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.

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)

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)

[edit] Citation of Don Shelby

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)

weird non-notable quote imoElizmr 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)

All mention of the Shelby comments should be dropped. If you look at the link its nothing but an undeclared blog entry. It says "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. ... My original hope was that Muslims in the Middle East would see Ellison's election as evidence of an open and democratic society. That the terrorists hate Ellison as much as any American actually makes me feel just as good." This is not unbiased reporting this is a reporters blog. He doesn't source any of the information, his bio on the CBS affiliate’s website makes no claim he can read arabic, and he doesn't name any expert who gave him this info. A reporters blog is still a blog and therefore not up to wiki standards. Also the claim that Ellison ever invoked McVeigh is unfounded, the source quotes an AP story that says "Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, sees it this way: Osama bin Laden no more represents Ellison's religion than Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity." There's no way to tell if this is Ellison's opinion or the reporters and it should be dropped unless it can be sourced directly to him.

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)

Found original source for Shelby and UPI stories, New York Daily News story - replaced Shelby segment with SITE segment. As SITE isn't part of the media put it in its own section.--Wowaconia 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allahu akbar

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)

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)

It is just a link to his happy victory celebration. It is from a good source. What's the problem? And the language is fine "some" of his supporters doesn'nt really imply much. It is an interesting tape. Elizmr 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

That is original research wp:or. Pleae give Americans some credit for not being bigoted and jumping to bigoted assumptions. If anything, this spot stresses that Allah = the Christian God = the Jewish G-d and the expression is not a warlike one. And Americans are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, Shinto, etc etc--ie not all Christians. Elizmr 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This is the talk page, not the article. I am American, and I know what I'm talking about. There is a great deal of suspicion of Islam in this country, and if you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention. Making a deal over his supporters saying this, does nothing but help feed bigotry (assuming bigots read wikipedia). Wahkeenah 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

I moved this statement out of the background segment to the segment about the 2006 election. When it was in the background section the statement had no relation to the sentences that proceeded them. It makes sense to speak of Ellison's controversial association with the Nation of Islam and his downplaying of his religious background in his background section, but having this sentence follow it implies that something controversial happened at the victory rally when nothing did. It is not controversial for politicians to thank their god nor is it controversial for Muslims to say "Allahu akbar". I'm sure President Bush hears our allies Hamid Karzai, Pervez Musharraf, Jalal Talabani, & Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (whose entertaing the Pres. in his country as I write this) say "Allahu akbar" all the time. I bet our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan hear this from the troops and police their training(and trusting their lives to) out in the field all the time. The only place I can think of offhand where saying this is controversial would be if you were a Uighur in Communist China. Americans using there rights to choose their own religion and express it at moments of joy isn't controversial its (thankfully) run of the mill.--Wowaconia 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think the sentence was precise in describing actual events and the inclusion of the English translation is helpful for context he says "God is good" they respond in agreement with "God is great". The link provides more in-depth historical context to "Allahu akbar" but the inclusion of the English translation here provides immediate context for how this relates to what Ellison just said.--Wowaconia 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Anon's explanation completely implausible. It should be in. Elizmr 11:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Sorry, how is that NOT neutral? would "shouts" be better? It is straight description. Elizmr 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Shouted" definitely reads better than "responded with cries of", which is wordy. "Cried" could have worked also. Or, how about just "responded"? Wahkeenah 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Alexander's Allegations

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)

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)
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)
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)

I agree on the current events tag and have added it.--Wowaconia 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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))
Per the living persons policy, these unsubstantiated allegations just don't belong in a bio article. Jonathunder 14:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

I agree with Wahkeenah. It sounds like a nothing. I would be in favor of it going away. It sounds like a smear. Elizmr 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please look at the following quotes (emphasis added) found at wiki-standards under WP:LIVING
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 Post[1]; The Houston Chronicle [2]; Fox News [3] The Seattle Post Intelligencer[4]; The Minnesota ABC affiliate KSTP [5] The Lacross Tribune [6] The Winona Daily News [7]. 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[8]; by Canada’s Ottawa Recorder[9]; Canada’s Westfall Weekly News[10]; Canada’s Hinesberg Journal [11]; and Canada’s Pierceland Herald [12]; Australia’s Path Publishing Group magazine “Leading the Charge” also ran the story [13]. 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 [14]. 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)

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) I agree according to Wikipedia rules it is ok to be in the article. Elizmr 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denomination?

Most other US politicians' articles seem to identify specific denominations rather than umbrella religions. Is there any information about Ellison's? Sunni? NOI? What mosque he attends? Шизомби 12:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Though he downplays it now, he was earlier associated with the Nation of Islam. Today he attends the Masjid An-Nur mosque in North Minneapolis and identifies as Sunni. Jonathunder 01:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a cite for this? If so we could put it in the article. Elizmr 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Googling for Masjid An-Nur + Ellison gave these two news articles:
Star Tribune
City Pages
Jonathunder 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/special_packages/election2004/election2004/16026697.htm reports that Keith is a Sunni (hope this helps) Rej4sl 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabo

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)

[edit] Oath on Koran

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)

I am not shocked this is a state who elected a pro-wrestler before after all, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."Mibo123 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a front-page story on USAToday.com, thanks to the stink raised by publicity-seeking pundit Dennis Prager. Keep in mind, the Constitution does not specifically make that guarantee. Just like there's no constitutional right to privacy, or separation of church and state, because (in the right-wingers' minds) it doesn't use those specific words. That's what they call "strict construction". Wahkeenah 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)

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)

Reduced the info in this article to a paragraph as suggested above, moved bulk of info to its own page as controversy over Prager's remarks (not Ellison's wishes) seems to be growing. Included link to the new page in paragraph. Renamed the segment remaining and included it with other media reactions and renamed that segment to reflect the change. --Wowaconia 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison is NOT taking his oath on the Quran Sartaj 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Sartaj

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)
- 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).
I was reported by ABC News November 11 [1] and Star Tribune November 13 [2] (SEWilco 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I included the ref your looking for in the new page thats wiki-linked in this segment. I'll paste it here for those watching this page its from Nov. 19 and Prager didn't write his piece until the 28th. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS07/611190577/1009 --Wowaconia 13:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] "site monitoring"

I removed this section. The content seemed inappropriate. An article about what chat room participants are saying abotu Ellison implying what???? a reply from ellison's media manager from the same article??? has the look of publicity created by someone for some reason and whatever that is it is not encyclopedic. Elizmr 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sources for the article The New York Daily News investigator had Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute a non-profit organization look at websites used by terrorist sympathizers. This was seen as significant enough to be picked up by the global news service UPI. You tagged deletion of this segment 23:06, 11 December 2006 Elizmr (Talk | contribs) (→SITE's monitoring -completely not notable; probably a publicity thing set up by ellison himself) shows you either did not read any of the sources or are motivated by POV. Either way the information passes all wiki-standards and should remain. Moving it to some poorly renamed segment doesn't make sense as it was not media generated - NY Daily News did not generate the terrorist web traffic they reported on it.Wowaconia 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cair section

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)

[edit] more on prager

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)

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)

Have you looked at the sub-page "Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress" several Congressmen and Senators are weighing in on this issue. A paragraph here pointing to the sub-page is appropriate. There has not been any divisive movement on this page about this issue since the sub-page went in. Until your current actions. Your comments here should be addressed in the sub-page. Also your retitling the segment as "Media-generated controversies" is flat-out POV as if you read the sub-page you'll see Prager maintains that Ellison started this issue.Wowaconia 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to address your concerns I renamed "Media views on Ellison" to "Media personalities and Ellison" I think this informs the reader that these stories involve pundits which are seperate from newscasting. Still this info should remain as pundits have the ability to make news and in the Beck and Prager cases they did.Wowaconia 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Controversies during 2006 election" segment should not be folded into a catch-all "Controversies" segment

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/e/i/Talk%7EKeith_Ellison_%28politician%29_9f9c.html"