Talk:Keith Ellison (politician)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Muslim causes

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)

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

Thanks to all those who left opinions for the Request for comments

Thanks to everyone who left comments concerning the placement of the Nation of Islam segment in this article. Consensus felt it should be in a "Controversies" segment instead of "Controversies during the election 2006" and currently that's how the page is formatted. Thanks for your input to all who participated.Wowaconia 17:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going along with the consensus on this. Elizmr 06:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

jihadi chat rooms

There was an objection to calling this segment "SITE monitoring" so I left the title. I included more info on SITE Institute as there was a question of what motivated them. As they are a tax-exempt they can't charge for there servies as per US tax law. As America is at war with terrorists networks and not just Bin Laden I think the line “two jihadi chat rooms…One chat room, called Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network…Many Al Qaeda communiques first appeared on the site” is crucial to the segment and should not be removed. There has been a question of the notablility of this information, I would argue that since those posting on these chat rooms (whom the FBI and the Dept. of Defense would like to kill or imprison and interrogate) are following the fatwa to "Kill Americans Everywhere" the fact that they are talking about a specific individual by name is significant. A further argument is that by all other accounts Ellison (a freshmen member of the 435 seat House) should be totally obscure to everyone outside the US and normally would be obscure to everyone outside of Minnesota, you don't see them talking about how they dislike freshmen Rep. Michele Bachmann(R-MN).Wowaconia 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:There has been a question of the notablility of this information,
I wasn't aware there was such a question. I realize there was some disagreement about the title. However, I'm fine the current title (or the previous one).--CSTAR 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
New problems with this section since recent revisons:
  • I feel there is too much description of the SITE institute, which has its own Wiki article. We should say something more brief and Wikilink. Here's what is there now: "The SITE Institute is a (“a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization” [79] that “Through continuous and intensive examination of extremist websites, public records, and international media reports, as well as through undercover work on both sides of the Atlantic”[80] “provides information related to terrorist networks to the government, news media, and general public.”[79]. The institute was cited in a story by The New York Daily News". That is a lot to say about SITE on ellison's page. Also note that the SITE institutes page does not present this study at all, it is just reported on in a very short piece in the NY Daily News.
  • the wikipedia article now refers to two sets of comments, one from chat room participants and the second from "pundits" My reading of the Daily News article is that ALL of the quoted comments were from chat room participants rather than some being from pundits and other belonging to chat room participants. Please note that these terms are in no way equivalent
  • The newspaper where this was reported is first listed correctly as the NY Daily News and later as the "Times". This is just a slip of the pen that needs to be corrected.
  • The UPI intenational ref is a direct reprint of the Daily News article. I don't think we need both refs here.
  • Here is the previously written section, which I believe is a more accurate representation of the NY Daily News article and does not contain the above problems. I suggest that we revert to this version: "After the 2006 election, the SITE Institute monitored Jihadist chat rooms to see if participants there were commenting on Ellision or his election victory. According to SITE, participants in two chat rooms commented on Ellison. Chat rooms monitored by the institute include “Al-Hesbah", which has ties to Bin Laden. Participants called Ellsion, "the first Jewish Muslim that goes to Congress", a "fool" trying to "deceive us," and "one of them, [a] one-way ticket to Hell." Another characterized the election as "a comedy". One said, "My God, if you have 1 billion Muslims like him, we shall [continue to] fight you as the Muslim fights the infidel." The New York Daily News, which reported on the story, quoted the reaction from Ellison's spokesperson, "Why would Al Qaeda embrace Keith's success? He's the opposite of what they're about."[76]"
  • In additon, this previous version places the context as perielection, preserves more of the relevant content from the Daily News article, while avoiding any distortion. Elizmr 06:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The word Times was a slip, I changed it. The use of "jihadi pundits" and "jihadist chat rooms" are quotes from the story, I don't really care for the use of "jihadi pundits" as no media pundit I know is advocating mass violence versus the innocent so I would prefer to use "terrorist supporters" or "terrorist sympathizers" which are more familiar terms. As it seems that its not just me whose confused by this word choice, I think changing it would be clearer. I think the full description of Al-Hesbah provided in the article is necessary because it furthers notability: "One chat room, called Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network…Many Al Qaeda communiques first appeared on the site” is preferable to "Al-Hesbah", which has ties to Bin Laden."Wowaconia 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, you're right about the pundits thing. Please accept my apology. Basically this is a very BRIEF Daily News article and doesn't really have all that much information about what exactly SITE was looking at. It sounded like chat rooms, but pundits make it sound more like they were monitoring talk shows, talk radio, etc. I wish we could see the SITE report since that would be really helpful. It is not on their Web site however.
  • Could we put the sentence into sentence I wrote in for context and clarity: "After the 2006 election, the SITE Institute monitored Jihadist chat rooms to see if participants there were commenting on Ellision or his election victory"?
  • A web site tied to the democratic party recently had some comments supporting David Duke. Does this mean that the Dems support David Duke? I don't think so. Could we say, "Chat rooms monitored by the institute include “Al-Hesbah", which the Daily News says is "solidly tied" to Bin Laden"??Elizmr 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As per your comment I put in “found posts about Ellison soon after his 2006 victory” in the segment (when I cut down on the info on SITE as per your suggestion). If it does not seem prominent in the segment it could be moved to the beginning. The Daily News says Al-Hesbah is connected to "Bin Laden’s network" not solidly tied to Bin Laden himself so we shouldn’t imply that to avoid OR. If you want to use the phrase “Al-Hesbah", which the Daily News says is "solidly tied" to Bin Laden", the word "says" implies that this is just their opinion, but it can be seen at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20527440.htm that Reuters also states it as a fact that Al-Hesbah is connected to al Qaeda...

(emphasis added) “An Islamist Web site used by militant groups including al Qaeda urged Muslims on Wednesday to seek the release of a cleric jailed in the United States through ‘any form of attempt or pressure’. Al-Hesbah Network also warned Washington that it would be held responsible for any harm that came to Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Muslim cleric imprisoned for conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks.”--Wowaconia 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I merged your ideas and mine into one section. Please note that I didn't remove any of your stuff. I rewrote some of the sentences for clarity. Elizmr 20:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) (note: lead with the daily news and the perielection timing to frame the situation, let the description of SITE (do we really need two cites for SITE since we have a wikitag???) come second to this becuase they don't even report on this on their web page. All the cited material is from the DN reporting on a SITE communique we don't have access to. Elizmr 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "they characterized as" implies that the information about Al-Hesbah's ties to the Al-Queda network is their opinion and not an established fact (see above post quoting Reuters). Changing "they characterized" to "is" will clarify this.--Wowaconia 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Representative vs. Representative-elect

At some point we may have to retitle the Prager segment and move it to the "Controversies" header as now Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) is opposing Ellison's use of the Quran. Its no longer pundit vs Legislator, but incoming freshmen Democrat Representative being oppossed for following religious dictates by 5th-term Republican Representative.Wowaconia 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I had noted that Rep. Goode reacted to the furor about the Ellison oath, original objected to by Prager in the same segment talking about Prager and it was deleted by this edit by user "Folksong" on 01:01, 21 December 2006 the history tag said (→Dennis Prager, KRLA - I thought this was Prager's section.. why is Goode's xenophobic statement below it?). Prager has stressed his lack of Islamaphobia in his past so it seems like a fair critique for someone to object to Goode being mentioned in the same section, but its certainly notable that Ellison is being attacked by another Representative. So I'm going to move it to the "Controversies" segment.Wowaconia 03:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok with me, but can we keep all of the 'oath on the koran" stuff together in one place in the article? We could get rid of media commentators on ellison and put all of that stuff in controversies. Elizmr 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New info in 84th legislative session section

This paragraph seems to detail a conroversy around the election rather than Ellison's achievements and positions during the session. Is it really necessary content for this article? "In his 2004 bid for re-election his opponent Jay Cyril Mastrud brought a complaint the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging Ellison’s campaign website “does not contain a disclaimer in the form required by the statute” and that invitations to Ellison’s “Second Saturday” public meetings in District 58b should also be considered campaign material and also “does not contain a disclaimer”.[1] At the hearing it was detemined that no probable casue existed as the website “prominently included the name and address of Respondent’s committee…[though] it did not, until the last few days, contain the words, ‘Prepared and paid for by…’” and that “The flyer distributed by Respondent inviting the public to constituent meetings during the past legislative session at which Respondent and another legislator reported on legislative activities, and that was paid for by the House of Representatives, was not ‘campaign material’”.[2]" Elizmr 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This stuff seems to have arisen because of a lack of attention to detail in the Ellison camp, the court said there wasn't enough for the case to go forward, but the whole thing wouldn't have come up if common practice would've been followed. I'm not sure if its not notable or if its part of some behavior pattern along with the late filings and parking tickets.Wowaconia 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree, however, that it is not really in keeping with the other information in the sections--ie positions and achievements? It would seem to be a controversy, and could be listed below with those if considered notable enough. Elizmr 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon consideration of your points, I concluded that it was not suitably notable and deleted the information from the article.--Wowaconia 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ellison is a Sunni, is there confusion or vandalism?

The post titled 00:52, 22 December 2006 68.69.51.167 (Talk) (religious views) changed Ellison's religous views in the call-out box from Sunni Islam to Nation of Islam. I'll change it back to Sunni but do you think the article is unclear that he is not a member of the NOI or do you think this was vandalism?Wowaconia 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably vandalism, I've haven't heard of Ellison being a member of the NoI. GoodDay 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

On non-payment of fines and taxes

An un-logged user removed the info on his non-payment of fines and taxes without discussion. This should not be done so causually. This was important during the election and since he has yet to take office I don't see the reason for taking it out now. If one believes it to be too trivial for permanent representation here, and that arguement becomes the consensus then it should be moved to the page about the 2006 election for the fifth district seat.--Wowaconia 06:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions of other (foreign) Muslims?

Many of Ellison's political objectives appear inconsistent with islamic law - in particular his opposition to a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman. As homosexual acts are illegal in every predominantly muslim country, I imagine they haven't even gotten around to the issue of gay marriage - yet, one would think this is the kind of stuff that turns most muslims against the US. Are there any international muslim organizations that have said anything about this guy? -71.167.196.143

While I know you asked about international muslim organizations, as most American Muslims are generally more socially conservative than Ellison, perhaps this may offer some insight. I found this from an Associated Press article on http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/08/america/NA_POL_US_Election_Muslim.php “Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society, compared an Ellison victory to Edward Brooke's election in 1966 as the first black senator since the 1870s. He said Muslims followed the campaign closely, and that they are more excited about seeing a Muslim in Congress than they are concerned about Ellison's strong liberal views. "We are monotheistic, but we are not monolithic. There are things within our own community that we disagree about," he said. Ellison's views "might be a concern but I think the overall factor of having a Muslim voice in Congress overrides those types of concerns." --Wowaconia 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally American-Muslims backed the republican party because of their stance on social issues, including questions on gay rights and abortion. This can be seen in the 2000 election of Saghir "Saggy" Tahir, to quote his wiki-page “According to (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) CAIR 78% of Muslims voted Republican in 2000...because many American Muslims say they share the same social values as the Republicans.” But as of 2006 “A pre-election CAIR survey revealed that 42 percent Muslim voters consider themselves members of the Democratic Party while only 17 per cent are Republican.” Polls indicate this is because they “strongly oppose the war in Iraq” and have a “deep disaffection with the Bush administration”. Its got refs there if you’d like to check the info.--Wowaconia 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Another source on the same: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1558227,00.html “Muslim Americans in Minnesota and throughout the nation have been forging a coalition with liberals on issues like those articulated by Congressman-elect Ellison — universal health insurance, tougher environmental regulation, opposition to the Patriot Act and an immediate end to the war in Iraq. Just a few years ago such a coalition would have been unthinkable. In 2000, Muslim American leaders overcame their reluctance to get involved in politics and, almost unanimously, endorsed George Bush for President. For the most part well educated and affluent, Muslim Americans went along with Bush's low-tax, limited government philosophy and enthusiastically embraced his conservative social agenda — especially Bush's pro-life and anti-gay rights stance. But since 9/11, all this has changed. Now secular liberals and culturally conservative Muslims are united in their intense opposition to Bush's policies at home and abroad, especially in the Middle East. …For immigrant-origin Muslims, African Americans' long-standing concern with civil rights suddenly has a relevance it previously lacked. And now, Muslims from places like Pakistan or Egypt, who might in the past have avoided politics, see the need for allies and guides through the unfamiliar American political landscape. Still, immigrant Muslims remain devout social conservatives. And in Minneapolis in the days leading up to the celebration Tuesday night, one could hear many of them trying to reconcile their support for Ellison and other liberals on Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor ticket with their unrelenting opposition to abortion and especially homosexuality. It is clearly not easy for them to do so, but as one Muslim American leader born in Afghanistan put it, "the majority of Muslims weigh the alternatives" — and vote against President Bush and the Republicans.”--Wowaconia 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions similar incidents in Britain. Found at http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1785_0_25_0_C “But what does this say about the Muslim electorate? Chances are, if Muslims saw another candidate with Ellison's stands on gay rights, abortion, and his suspiciously boiler plate platform on Israel, Iran, and the Middle East, they would not support him. Yet Ellison has the admiration of his Muslim constituents in the same way that a Muslim girl, Hammasa Kohistani, was spared much grief after her selection as Miss England, or that Yusuf Islam [once known as Cat Stevens] is confident enough to venture back into pop music. In other words, the notoriety supercedes the reservations. Beyond this, Muslims in the west should realize that they are seeing the face of future generations take shape, generations that might adopt cultural and political values that aren't necessarily the same as their forebearers or against Islam as they choose to practice it. Politically speaking, issues like equal rights for gays within a pluralistic society make sense when Muslims demand the same equal protection (the Muslim Council of Britain, who clashed with gays earlier this year, should take note).”

Why are inflammatory quranic verses listed????

Why are select Quranic verses listed on this page? What do they have to do with Rep Keith Ellison? I am sure we can find some pretty inflammatory rhetoric in all the 'holy books'. Osabek 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

These appear to be the work of a single vandal who according to the history page placed the same quotes on 21:27, 26 December 2006 84.146.209.79 and then again on 18:00, 27 December 2006 84.146.253.115.--Wowaconia 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wowaconia, I went ahead and removed it... I am pretty new to the wikipedia community, did I follow proper procedure? Osabek 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Osabek, it was vandalism as it had no context to Ellison. When I bothered to track down who was posting these things I found that they first came from a blog, which is not a credible source for a wiki-page, even if it would have claimed to have some connection to this article.--Wowaconia 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the "Tracking recent slanderous vandalism" segment below.--Wowaconia 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing for length

Hello, I'm new here and I noticed that a) the article was nearly 60k long (thus breaking the Wiki rule for article length) and b) much of that length was taken up by lengthy cites that needed to be summarized and put into context, as most of them were politically motivated (citing them was fine, so long as there wasn't any pretense that these were impartial sources). Here's my last edit, which was done to fix that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Ellison_%28politician%29&oldid=97149798 CC2006 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will note that your last edit completely removed the entire short section detailing well-cited facts that Ellison did not pay taxes for several years. You also removed all mention of campaign finance violations, other legal troubles, and fines. These are part of the man's life, and they need to stay as part of a balanced biography. I object to any whitewash. Jonathunder 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to take out that particular section, Jonathunder. I will note that many of the alleged legal troubles mentioned turned out to be a lot less than they appeared (if you'll study the previous edit history of this page, you'll note that at least one person tried to post a bogus rape allegation against Ellison) and that other local politicians have had similar if not worse troubles, yet have not had them publicized so extensively; for instance, Alan Fine, Ellison's GOP opponent, had a domestic violence assault arrest and other charges against him expunged from his own record (the original StarTribune URL was at http://www.startribune.com/587/story/727029.html, but it's gone behind the pay wall; significant portions thereof are quoted here: http://www.mngopwatch.com/archives/2006/10/542/).

And I also think that it's fair to note that the sources for much if not most of the information that I tried to condense in the "Controversies" section are a) not exactly non-partisan and b) willing to go to great lengths to conceal just who they are and what could be motivating them. Big case in point: Michael "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" Brodkorb, who is one of the most-cited sources in the previous versions of this webpage, had tried for many months to hide not just his authorship of MDE, but the fact that he was being paid by both the Mark Kennedy AND the Michele Bachmann campaigns for 'research' (that is, 'opposition research' -- aka mudslinging) among other things (http://minnesotapublius.com/2006/09/26/mnpublius-exclusive-michael-brodkorb-on-the-bachmann-campaign-payroll/).

You would have had to have lived in Minnesota to understand the sheer level of nastiness being flung at the man -- nastiness to which, thank goodness, he did not respond in kind. Read this CityPages article to get a handle on just how outrageous was and is the abuse he got, from Republicans and from a few opportunistic Democrats as well: http://www.citypages.com/databank/27/1343/article14661.asp CC2006 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do live in Minnesota, though not in the Fifth District, and I do read Twin Cities newspapers often. I know what was removed in those edits was quite well sourced, so we will leave them in the article and let the reader make up her own mind, rather than try to lump every criticism of the man with the least supported allegations. Jonathunder 20:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Recentism

I suggest that the editors of this page read Wikipedia:Recentism. This article does not do a good job of providing a long term view and instead lists out random tangential items like "Comments on Ellison from Jihadist chat rooms". - Ravedave (Adopt a State) 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors of the Star Tribune newspaper are also invited to provide a long term view of Keith Ellison. (SEWilco 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

The article on recentism talks about recent events dominating a whole page and that they should be moved to a sub-page - this is what we did for Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress. The recentism essay (which isn't even a wiki-guideline) worries about that "articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens" an example it lists is "Long passages in an NBA basketball player's biography or an actress's biography may be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy whose text exceeds the number of words in the rest of the article combined." This was happening here in the past over the Quran Oath Controversy but this was cleared up by moving that to its own sub-page. Where now do you see recentism happening in this Ellison article? You mention one segment which is one paragraph long and charge the whole article as being recentism? I suggest Ravedave that you go to Wikipedia:Recentism and reread the essay.--Wowaconia 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just whinging. Ignore it. Anyway, another matter: the article at Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress does a good job of explaining what a "reenactment ceremony" is, but this article just mentions it without any explanation. Confusing. — coelacan talk — 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I changed it to reflect more clearly that it was a reenacment as per your suggestion.--Wowaconia 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)