Talk:Keith Ellison (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Keith Ellison (politician) is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
WikiProject Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Minnesota articles.

This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Archive

Archives
* Archive 1 * Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Note on archiving.

As there were no ongoing debates and the page was getting long, I archived the last disscussion page.--Wowaconia 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Ellison not John Randolph of Roanoke is the first Muslim elected to Congress

The claim that Keith Ellison is not the first Muslim in the Federal Congress is put forward by only one person the self-proclaimed historian David Barton see this discussion on his source for the claim at http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2007/01/14.html . All accredited historians, agree as does the Official historian to the US House of Reps that Ellison is the first Muslim elected to the federal congress. John Randolph of Roanoke as a boy rooting for Muslims in stories about the Crusades is not the same as actually being a Muslim. In most places in America in 1799 (when Randolph was elected) you couldn't get elected to Congress if you were a Roman Catholic which is a lot closer to Protestant than Islam. See this article by a history professor on the need for those who ratified the Constitution in 1788 to address the concerns of Protestant Reverends that the lack of a religious test to hold office would allow Catholics and Muslims to join the Govt. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16359671.htm Barton's claim that John Randolph of Roanoke was elected as a Muslim just eleven years after this heated debate seems typical of his shoddy scholarship.

--Wowaconia 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Barton's quoted source for his claim is The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (vol. II) by Hugh A. Garland. The book does exist, see here and here, and I was able to access a ten-page excerpt through JSTOR that was reprinted in the William & Mary Quarterly in 1915. The excerpt concerns Randolph's school days and unfortunately does not include the page cited by Barton (p. 102) -- it makes no mention of any religion.

There seems to be ample evidence to doubt Barton's claim about Randolph, as mentioned above, but to be rigorous and to forestall an edit war, does anyone have access to Garland's biography? (Perhaps I should ask this on Randolph's page too.)

Three white leopards 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Try Google Books, I've been looking into it and it seems John Randolph of Roanoke had many stages of depression and questioning his own worth and was deeply troubled that people claiming to be Christians could still be greedy or violent. It appears he had a long period where he would not participate in the Christian rite of the Lord's Supper as he felt himself unworthy to partake in it.

There is no mention of him doing any of the things Islam requires of converts.
Here is what is required to convert to Islam according to http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/islam_conversion_main.htm

A person becomes a Muslim upon pronouncing the shahadah ["Ash HaduAllaa Ilaaha Il-lallaah Wa Ash Hadu Anna Muhammadar Rasullulah" which translates into "I bear Witness that there is no deity but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad if His Messenger" but must be said in Arabic] in front of two adult Muslim witnesses. A Muslim has to do the daily prayers, fast in Ramadan and apply the teachings of Islam in his daily life. But if a revert is unable to do all the prayers immediately after his conversion, he should try to do those he could. However, he should aim to be a practicing Muslim as soon as possible in order not to miss out in the race to accumulate blessings.

So far I haven't even seen any source claiming he owned a Quran.
--Wowaconia 05:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica only mentions this about his religion:

"Both his religious and his political views were radical and extreme. At an early period he imbibed deistical opinions, which he promulgated with eagerness."

There is a note:

"The best biography is that by Henry Adams, John Randolph (Boston, 1882), in the "American Statesmen Series." There is also a biography, which, however, contains many inaccuracies, by Hugh A. Garland (2 vols., New York, 1851)."

I don't think I have either of those. (SEWilco 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC))


I hadn't thought to check Google Books, thanks! It has the book, but I believe is missing the cited section. Barton cites p. 102 in volume II (inconveniently, the Google Books version is in one volume). He also adds in his cite "to Dr. Brockenbrough," who appears on p. 22 in an unrelated letter, and on a p. 172 that the Google preview lacks.

I've discovered that it's at a library near me, though -- I'll take a look tomorrow. User:Jbjazz, is it reasonable to ask to defer to the official Congressional historical version for 24 hours, in the meantime?

Three white leopards 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article John Randolph of Roanoke does not mention his religion. It does mention heavy drinking. (SEWilco 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
Randolph's article has a link to the Congress bio. No mention of religion there. (SEWilco 05:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
True. When I said "the official Congressional historical version" I was referring (unclearly, sorry) to the positive statement by U.S. Senate historian Donald Ritchie that Ellison was the first (see, for example, here). -Three white leopards 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Randolph of Roanoke in his own words

Here are some quotes from "The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke" By Hugh A. Garland courtesy of Google books as the book is in the public domain. (I’ll probably copy this stuff for inclusion onto the John Randolph of Roanoke article). Note:These quotes taken from his Sept. 25, 1818 letter to Francis Scott Key.

It seems that as a youth Randolph was excited by the writers of the Enlightenment and felt that Christianity was hypocrisy - -

He wrote Dr. Brockenbrough, “Your imputing such sentiments to a heated imagination does not surprise me, who have been bred in the school of Hobbs and Bayle, and Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke, and Hume and Voltaire and Gibbon; who have cultivated the skeptical philosophy from my vain-glorious boyhood—I might also say childhood—and who have felt all that unutterable disgust which hypocrisy and cant and fanaticism never fail to excit in men of education and refinement, superadded to our natural repugnance to Christianity. I am not, even now, insensible to this impression; but as the excesses of her friends (real or pretended) can never alienate the votary of liberty from a free form of government, and enlist him under the banners of despotism, so neither can the cant of fanaticism, or hypocrisy, or of both (for so far from being incompatible, they are generally found united in the same character—may God in his mercy preserve and defend us from both) disgust the pious with true religion."
It is during this period that he reads about the Crusades and roots for the Muslims.
"Very early in life I imbibed an absurd prejudice in favor of Mahomedanism and its votaries. The crescent had a tailsmanic effect on my imagination, and I rejoiced in all its triumphs over the cross (which I despised) as I mourned over its defeats; and Mahomet II Himself did not more exult than I did, when the crescent was planted on the dome of St. Sophia, and the cathedral of the Constantines was converted into a Turkish mosque. To this very day I feel the effects of Peter Randolph’s Zanga on a temper naturally impatient of injury, but insatiably vindictive under insult."

His "conversion" that he talks about with Key is not from Islam to Christianity but from doubting Christian to fully convinced and participating Church member.

"Mine had been no sudden change of opinion. I can refer to a record, showing, on my part, a desire of more than nine years’ standing, to partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; although, for two-and-twenty years preceding, my feet had never crossed the threshold of the house of prayer. This desire I was restrained from indulging, by the fear of eating and drinking unrighteously. And although that fear hath been cast out by perfect love, I have never yet gone to the altar, neither have I been present at the performance of divine service, unless indeed I may so call my reading the liturgy of our church, and some chapters of the Bible to my poor Negroes on Sundays. Such passages as I think require it, and which I feel competent to explain, I comment upon—enforcing as far as possible, and dwelling upon, those texts especially that enjoin the indispensable accompaniment of a good lfe as the touchstone of the true faith. The Sermon from the Mount, and the Evangelists generally; the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, chap. vi.; the General Epistle of James, and the First Epistle of John; these are my chief texts."
--Wowaconia 06:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again. Were you able to access the cited letter to Dr. Brockenbrough on p. 172? I certainly don't think it's necessary in order to restore Ellison's "first Muslim" claim on the page (which I'll do shortly if nobody else has), but if we can find the exact passage that Barton cites and it isn't evidence for Randolph having been a Muslim, we can put the question to bed for all reasonable people. -Three white leopards 06:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for it.--Wowaconia 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the letter to Brockenbrough on p. 172, it does not mention anything about Islam at all. The reference to a Telemonian shield is to the Greek hero Ajax (mythology).

"From the same steamboat, Nautilus, he addressed the following note to Dr. Brockenbrough. “As I stepped into the Nautilus, a large packer from Washington, among which was yours inclosing ‘Uncle Nat’s’ letter, was put into my hands. The ‘Native of Virginia’ is indiscreet in covering too much ground. he ought to have darned and patched old Tom’s Mantle, and fought behind it as a Telemonian shield. Add to my P.S, in the address to my constituents, that letters, via New-York, to the care of the P. Master, will reach me. My address is, care of John & Wm. Gilliatt, London, until further notice. I am nearing the Amity. Farewell! farewell!!"
--Wowaconia 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems I have to thank you one more time! :) By the way, I've found a different version of the biography that is split into two volumes, and therefore can definitively state that the cited p. 102 contains only the "prejudice in favor of Mohamedanism" passage you quote above. That is the only citation given by Barton, and there is no way to infer from that that Randolph was Muslim. Time to put this one to bed. -Three white leopards 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Barton's claims are self-published and not up to wiki-standards

As the article by David Barton claiming that Ellison is not the first Muslim elected to congress is on http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/ellison.pdf and as if you go to there home page and click on “About Us” you will see listed under founder the following info “WallBuilders’ founder and president, David Barton, resides in Aledo, Texas (just west of Fort Worth)”

therefor this article is self-published and not up to the wiki-standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#SELF
(Emphasis added) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
--Wowaconia 06:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Did my last edit work correctly and its reason make sense? I think so, but I'm double-checking as I'm quite new at editing Wikipedia. -Three white leopards 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is claimed that this source is self-published. However, it is an organization and not an individual, so I don't know how it works that way. Wooyi 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

The current photo looks horrendous, and in my view, un-Congressional. I suggest someone to find his official portrait. Wooyi 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a free photo from the public domain (which trumps fair use images) and its a headshot (the norm for politician pages in wiki) which is why its there currently. Everyday I've been going to his House website and clicking on the high-res photo link at http://ellison.house.gov/images/photo_hires.jpg

but so far there is nothing posted there :(
--Wowaconia 01:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They finally posted an official photo on his congressional website so I posted the photo from there. :)

--Wowaconia 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI

I have placed a COI tag on the article because of Excessive length, which indicates either COI or vanity--his article is 5 times as long as almost all the other MN congressmen. This is comprised of:

  1. Excessive details on legislative activity during the 83rd session of the MN legislature
  2. Excessive quotations from speeches in congress
  3. Excessive quotes re Islamic causes
  4. The controversies section: I think Farrahan balanced, but too long; I find the NY News part trivial. The rest seems in proportion.
  5. The references. There are 128 cites, half by him. Even Michelle Bachmann has only 69 total. DGG 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


  • You seem to be using the wrong tag, if you think this article is Pro-Ellison than why are you using a tag that says “The creator or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article.” Aren’t you arguing the exact opposite?
  • I cleared the details about the 83rd session.
  • Why are you complaining about the number of references when the tag you are using says "If the creator of the page would like to keep it from being deleted, it should be re-written in neutral language, and should use independent, reliable, third-party sources to show that the subject is notable."
  • The whole question of the number of references is a moot issue see Wikipedia:Article size
"For stylistic purposes, only the main body prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose."
  • No MN legislators has had more controversy surrounding them and more national and international media attention than Ellison, they have smaller articles because they are less notable.
  • I personally agree that the Nation of Islam information is too long, but I don't touch it because I hate getting into month-long edit wars with the other editors who watch this page.
--Wowaconia 12:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the segment "Point Of View On Important Issues" be deleted?

All the references to this segment are from his campaign literature. I think a list that just repeats campaign promises and positions isn't worthy of inclusion in this article but could be moved to the article about the 2006 election in MN's fifth district if its not there already. I think its preferrable to let his legistlative record show what positions he has, not campaign literature. For instance the reader knows he's for credit card reform because he has put forward a bill on it. If he has made notable speeches on his positions since the election those could be quoted instead of a mere list that repeats his 2006 election literature.

--Wowaconia 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Gang14 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, particularly if a replacement for each point already exists. With the exception that a contrary action probably requires mention of the campaign position. (SEWilco 06:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Agreed. The article is really long. It would be good to get rid of any extra fat. Bigglove 00:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 hitler remarks

(discussion copied from Bigglove's talk page)

To User:Bigglove: Your edits are libelous, Ellison did not make any comment that would assign responsability of 9-11 to anyone other than Al Queda. Look at the quote from the Star Tribune: "The fact is that I'm not saying Sept. 11 was a U.S. plan, or anything like that". The comments about Cheney preceded his comments comparing the after effects of the fire to those of 9-11 and are upon the same theme in the same speech. I have noticed that you continue to try and rearrange segments to make it look as if Ellison said Bush is behind 9-11 but the references state the exact opposite and Wikipedia will not place itself in a position where it can be accussed of libel. We can quote notable figures that interprete his words in the same manner you are interpreting them, as has been done with the John Gibson quote. But your edits are not neutral and the series of phrases you have been suggesting for the segment title plainly accuses him of saying something he did not say, and are therefore unacceptable. Please stop unilaterally reverting the article to suit your opinion, you are coming close to violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.

--Wowaconia 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am really suprised at your comments, which are not reality-based in the least.
  1. 1. The article in Wikipedia can not and should not rehash the entire speech he gave. The section is about the CONTROVERSY and the CONTROVERSY is about the meat of the quote from Ellison that my edit led with. The cheney thing you keep putting up there is not really part of the controversy and does not belong in the lead to the paragraph.
  2. 2. I am leading with Ellision's own comments. It is in no way shape or form libelous to quote someone directly. What are you talking about?????????????????????
  3. 3. The edit then outlines the reaction to what Ellision said, in the words that were in the article previous to me touching it. Please if you have a problem with this track down whoever wrote it and discuss with them.
  4. 4. Finally, my edit order: quote, reaction, further comments. This is neutral. Your order: your interpretation, quote, Ellison's further comments, THEN reaction, is less neutral. My order is preferable.
  5. 5. We need to come up with a meaninful title that actually conveys the nature of the remarks that we can both be happy with. Yours have not fit the bill. You are not happy with my ideas. Please feel free to suggest something else.
  6. 6. I think that everyone is allowed to edit wikipedia and you've changed every single one of my edits back around to something else. Aren't you violating the same rule you are acusing me of violating?

Bigglove 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Bigglove 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comments: Look at what you wrote above:
"Ellison did not make any comment that would assign responsability of 9-11 to anyone other than Al Queda. Look at the quote from the Star Tribune: "The fact is that I'm not saying Sept. 11 was a U.S. plan, or anything like that".
Here is the ACTUAL quote, "The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you"
It is QUITE misleading to parse a quote as you have done. Bigglove 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Dear User:Bigglove, you keep asserting that his talk was about assigning responsability to 9-11 which it was not, it was about the after effects of 9-11. I've been undoing your edits because they are not true, and are not supported by anything within any of the references. Its not controversial to say as Ellison did that Bush is not behind 9-11, it is controversial to make the claim that Cheney and Bush are using tragedy to assume dictorial powers. The controversy is over him saying their exploiting 9-11 in a power grab likening it to Hitler exploiting the fire to grab power in Germany. Analogies with Hitler are always controversial. You keep inserting titles like "Comments on aftermath of and responsibility for 9/11" the only thing he said about responsibility for 9-11 was that Bush and the US govt. wasn't responsible. Pointing out that people will dismiss everything you have to say and think your a nut-ball if you believe otherwise is not the same as saying that is your own belief. What is not neutral about the title "Compares after effects of Reichstag fire to those of 9-11"? The media uses the word Reichstag fire in the majority of the titles referring to the incident, and the call to update the article made at edit 08:23, 18 July 2007 by User:Perspicacite said it needed to be updated for "Reichstag speech", so that is why I made it a point of referring to Reichstag fire in the title.
You keep taking issue with his quote where he says Cheney is acting like if he's running a dictatorship, the most famous dictatorship in recent times of course has been Hitler so it makes no sense to remove it as you did earlier or remove it from the order of Ellison's speech as you are doing now that I keep inserting it back in. The theme of Ellison's speech was accussing the Bush administration of grasping for dictatorship and its controversial because he goes too far by comparing Bush to the worst dictator in human history. Its always a mistake to use Nazi analogies because their the extreme end of the scale. Hitler rounded up and killed his political opponents after the fire, Bush has done nothing remotely that bad. Invoking the Reichstag was stupid because Hitler is so ghastly and grisly so anyone is rightfully insulted to be mentioned in any way alongside him.
The story was covered by a Star Tribune reporter why do you want to move his interview with the reporter after the speech way down at the end of the segment instead of when it happened?
I agreed with your edit that the link to the Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session where Ellison dealt with an aspect of Holocaust denial, should not be linked within his quote about his history against such people. I fail to understand why you keep deleting its mention in a "see also" tag.

--Wowaconia 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He certainly did mention 9/11, please see the actual quote from Ellison above. My most recent title, which no doubt you have reverted by now, says R fire AND 9/11, which really doesn't imply anything that he mentioned 9/11 which he did. The problem with your version is that it conveys your own original research interpretation of the speech. We should have more direct quotes, and less of the couching explanatory verbiage that you have added.
I have already explained why I moved his follow up comments. the further comments he made were in response to further questions and the uproar his comments caused. that is why they should come AFTER the discussion of the reaction. Your reasoning that everything from the same paper shoudl be in the same paragraph sequentially doesn't make much sense. I know you disagree, but you are not the only editor of this articleBigglove 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I wrote a compromise version, which I think is fair. Cheney comes first as you've defended reasonably. Then the rest of the remarks, the the reaction, then the Ellsion explanation. This is fair. Please consider leaving it. I also don't know why we need to know the geographical location of the talk. It is extra text that is just clutting up an already overly long article. This article needs a good copy edit to remove this kind of fat. Bigglove 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The compromise version is indeed acceptable, though I think a "see also" tag linking to an article when Ellison in the Minnesota House went after someone he accussed of Holocaust denial (Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session) makes sense at the end where his quote about going after holocaust deniers is. Some questioned whether he had made too big a deal about the comments. Please note I never undid your title Comments:Reichstag fire and 9/11.--Wowaconia 00:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you didn't undo that particiular thing. I am sorry I had assumed you would based on passed experience :=(. I do not think that the link belongs. The synthesis is your own OR. Bigglove 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation for this speech is not working when I try it. Here is the one I know about... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml. Could you please add this link or fix it? Thanks...

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I put the cite you supplied in. Bigglove 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conversion details

Hi Ellisonites, could we get a cite on Ellison's conversion? It looks like his earlier history with Islam are with the Nation of Islam rather than a Sunni movement, but the text says he converted to Sunni. We need to tease this out with a ref here, or just say "Islam". Bigglove 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The refs you requested have been added. See especially ref from Newsweek entitled "I'm a Sunni Muslim". I placed the referrence in the article and for your convenience here's the link - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16474497/site/newsweek/page/0/

--Wowaconia 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Good to have the cite, which seems like a perfectly adequate one for this. He does contradict the record in terms of his NOI involvement, which is well documented elsewhere. Bigglove 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on the "Point of view on major issues" section

Am I wrong in thinking that this entry's Point of view on major issues section is the most thorough (and simple -perhaps even too simplistic) section of any entry on American politicians on Wikipedia? Prove me wrong.--Kitrus 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about all of Wikipedia, but it reads as like campaign literature to me as does a lot on this page. Bigglove 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks Tom. Bigglove 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And thanks to Wowaconia for removing the section from the article. I think it reads better now. Bigglove 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

I think we should start thinking about creating a seperate page for just these because frankly he is going to be a target the rest of his elected life. Just a thought. Gang14 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for a crystal ball, just edit what is presently in the article. (SEWilco 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
Who's talking about a crystal ball I'm trying to make the article less congested. Gang14 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been my experience that if you shear off information for a sub-page you will soon have to be defending the existence of that sub-page from people calling it a POV fork and demanding it be deleted. --Wowaconia 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem then lol jk Gang14 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia category

It does not make sense to add this category to the end of the bio page - it does not explain just how Ellison and Islamophobia are connected. One could add the category to pages about events that Ellison was a part of i.e. the page on the Quran controversy or the Flying Immams, but to just slap it on the end of this page does not explain how it is connected to Ellison. If there was a category "Victims of Islamophobia" one might argue that the page could be placed there, but otherwise there is no context to how the category is connected to the first popularly elected Muslim to the US Federal government. Ellison himself has never claimed anything bad that has happened to him was out of others fear and hatred, just out of misunderstanding - so he has never used the term. Again, if it was called "Victims of Islamophobia" there would be some context, without context the reader is left wondering why the Muslim success story of Keith Ellison is an example of Islamophobia.--Wowaconia 13:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Victims of a prejudice are not included in categories but people famous for espousing prejudice are, Anne Frank is not listed in the category of anti-semitism but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is. Therefor including Ellison in the category of Islamophobia makes it look like he is espousing it.--Wowaconia 16:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is that even a category Gang14 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns, request for comment on associated article

See Talk:Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress#Requesting comments: Applicability of BLP & NPOV policy. <eleland/talkedits> 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Sali controversy

This doesn't seem like it belongs on this page to me - it was really a controversy about Bill Sali, not Keith Ellison. In fact, Ellison wasn't even the main target of Sali's remarks: he was criticising the decision to allow a Hindu to lead the opening prayer of the Senate, and mentioned Ellison as an example of his point. I suggest moving this section to the Bill Sali article, as at the moment it looks like it was a controversy revolving around Keith Ellison, which isn't really the case. Terraxos (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)