Talk:Alan Keyes/Archive 1

Former Reference 34, 35 and Subheading "Mortal Sin"
Reference 34, http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm, isn't totally accurate. My entire purpose at this time is to defend the Catholic Church's policies on things like this. Yes, the Catholic Church doesn't approve of Abortions. Yes, according to #34, the Catholic Church reserves the right to excommunicate women who themselves have had an abortion. Also, of note in #34, there's a shunt which also says it's alright to vote for a canadate who doesn't favour restricting abortion as long as they are in a party that favours restricting abortion. Sounds like silly Conservative Catholic bias to me. Conte's fuzz on his logic leads him to be an unreliable, and more importantly, he does not dictate an official Catholic stance on the matter by being a lay member of society (and of course, not the [primate]). As of now, there is no official Catholic stance on who a Catholic should vote for. I've had to deal with this over the past eight years without fail. Now, another fun fact, Chicago is a grand Catholic city, in many ways. Now, if every Catholic in Chicago voted for Keyes, Keyes would have won by a landslide. But that didn't happen. Personally, I find this section very debatable and in need of change for a more updated factual basis on the Catholic vote in Illinois. Personally, Chicago's Archbishop Leadership Joseph Cardinal Bernardin discussed the Seamless Garment for years. Lastly it sounds like the Catholic Church is attempting to endorse Keyes, which is a violation on their tax-exempt status. I removed said issues without replacing them, temporarly. Comments? --Evesummernight 03:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There's some real idiots in the church - both clerical and lay - that have decided that to be a good Catholic a Catholic must vote Republican. Not Democrat or anything else, only Republican.  They don't care if they violate the church's tax exempt status in the process.  These idiots tends to look down their noses at everyone - including the Pope if he isn't Catholic enough for their tastes.  Most Catholics I know - including priests - aren't in that category.  It doesn't mean we vote straight ticket Democrat, but it doesn't automatically mean that they vote Republican either.  The attitude my friends and I took was anyone but Bush.  In fact I wrote my parents in for both President and Vice President.  Because with what we got in 2004 for choices, my parents would have beaten both Bush and Kerry hands down for being worthy of those offices.  And where I live, the traditional neturality was respected, from the Archbishop on down.  It wasn't a case of vote this or else.
 * JesseG 03:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Categories
Category:Christian leaders, Category:Christian ministers, Category:Christian writers, and Category:Creationists were recently added. Not every Christian who writes is a Christian Writer. A Christian who authors a physics textbook certainly is a christian and certainly is a writer, but is not a christian writer. I welcome proof of any of these categories, but they should not be inserted without it. Harvestdancer 21:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Alan Keyes has spoken at the Steeling the Mind Bible conferences. He has also written a Christian article in the book "Steeling the Mind of America," Volume II. I have it in my hand, now. He is a very vocal proponent of Christian and biblical values. Therefore, he is indeed a Christian leader, a Christian minister, and a Christian writer. The conclusion that he is also a creationist is the logical conclusion made after acknowledging his faith in Jesus Christ. --Jason Gastrich 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Except "logical conclusion" is original research. And not all Christians support creationism, many are opposed to the creationist movement. It's likely he does support creationism (in some form or other) but the Wiki requires verification and citation. Mark K. Bilbo 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts. Are you saying that any Christian writer is automatically a minister and a leader? If that is the case what is the distinction between these categories? Are they useful if they all contain the same people? I would also note that your conclusion that he is a creationist because he "acknowledges his faith in Jesus Christ" is not logical. You know there are many Christians that are not creationsists, Kenneth Miller for one. Unless you are using a definition of creationist which is, again, so broad that it is next to useless and certainly NOT conventional. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not all Christians are creationists. This is an invalid category until proven otherwise.  Keyes is a very intelligent man and is therefore probably not a creationist. Harvestdancer 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All Christians believe in the Bible. The Bible tells us that God created. Therefore, all Christians are creationists. A creationist simply believes God created. That's it.
 * Wow, *laughing,* that is hilarious. No, not all Christians are creationists--that is, believe that the biblical story of the creation of Earth is literally true, and therefore scientific and disproves evolution.  Let's not be coy--that's what creationism implies.  There are *plenty* of Christians who know the difference between religion and science--and are therefore not "creationists."  Most of us mainstream denominations in fact are not fundamentalists and firmly believe the Bible does not belong in public schooling.
 * A Christian writer is a Christian minister. His or her writings minister to others. However, a Christian minister is not necessarily a Christian writer. This is what keeps the categories meaningful. Example: JP Holding is a minister. He is not an author. Keyes is both.
 * A Christian writer isn't necessarily a Christian leader, but if his book is read by millions it would certainly bring him into consideration as one. Nonetheless, Keyes is a Christian and he was an ambassador, so that qualifies him as a Christian leader. A Christian who is a leader is a Christian leader. --Jason Gastrich 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By your definition it seems that any prominent Christian is a Christian leader. is this how you define Christian leader? If so, the category is going to be overwhelmed by Christians that most people do not consider to be Christian leaders. When users go to the category Christian leaders they are expecting to find popes, Billy Graham, Rev Moon and other similar figures in Christian history. Please address this point since it makes no sense to have most Christians in every Christian category.


 * With respect to ALL christians are creationists, you can only say that using the broadest definition of the term creationist. Creationism would never include people that believe that Genesis is an allegory. Do you claim that this type of Christian is to be viewed as a creationist or do you claim that this type of Christian does not exist? It has to be one or the other.  If the former, that is a very atypical view of creationism. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your conversation with Cyde. Looking at Creationist i notice that there is theistic evolution mentioned as a type of creationism. However, where do those Christians that believe that God has had no influence with regard to creation, ever, on earth fit into those defintions? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So in your view "creationism" is an extremely wide tent. It basically includes anyone who believes in religion. That's one way of looking at it. But the standard way of looking at it is that "creationist" means someone who says life was created by God pretty much in its present form rather than evolving over millions or billions of years. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See Creationist and look on the right hand side. The term creationist (or creationism) has a wide variety of differences among its adherents. The term is general. I wouldn't say Keyes is a YEC. I don't know that. I'm am certain that he believes God created, though. --Jason Gastrich 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It just occurs to me that your definition of the word makes it a synonym of theist, which is unnecessarily broad. Your broad definition includes Last Thursdayists, Young Earthers, Old Earthers, theistic evolutionists, and everything else inbetween.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You really need to read Creationist and examine that article. This isn't my definition. Your definition is incorrect as it contradicts Wiki's and is too narrow. --Jason Gastrich 21:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Gastrich, I'm a theist. I accept Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory.  Am I a creationist because I'm a theist?  It seems the one in need of reading isn't Cyde.  Harvestdancer 22:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to read a little more carefully. I never said all theists were creationists. I said all Christians were creationists; according to the Wiki definition of creationist. --Jason Gastrich 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again, where do those Christians that believe that God has had no influence with regard to creation, ever, on earth fit into those defintions of creationist? David D. (Talk) 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The hypothetical person you mention holds a contradictory viewpoint. Christians believe in the Bible. The Bible teaches that God created. Therefore, Christians are creationists and the hypothetical person you describe cannot exist. --Jason Gastrich 21:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What makes you think these are hypothetical Christians? Your assertion that ALL Christians believe God created earth and life is unjustified even if that is your own experience. i suspect you would not call these people Christians since they do not conform to your statement of faith but this is not the point since they describe themselves as Christians. So what is Kenneth Miller's stance on creation?  Has he shared his views? David D. (Talk) 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no statement from this man that tells me he is a Christian. Do you have one? I only see a label from someone that he is a Roman Catholic and (not that this matters much, but) Wiki seems to make a distinction between Christians and Roman Catholics. All I see is that he is an evolution proponent. Are you saying he is a Christian who rejects creation? Can you show me where he has said this? --Jason Gastrich 21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, so every Christian is a creationst? I know many christians who would disagree with that. Harvestdancer 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

i will continue here since the indents are getting out of control. Roman catholics are definitely Christian. Where does wiki distinguish them as something else? The moral is don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. With regard to Kenneth Miller (who is a roman catholic Christian) I don't know what his position is on Creation. I know he does not have a problem with evolution, so it is possible he is an example of a Christian who believes that God set the universe in motion (created at the time of the big bang) and then the rest of history just followed the physical rules without the intervention of God. If he does believe this, and insists he is a Christian, would you still categorise him as a creationist? Or are you saying these people have to form a off shoot religion from Christianity?

While we are at it, are creationists only Christian or should the term, with respect to the wikipedia categories, also include other religions? David D. (Talk) 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we to once again be subjected to self-serving attempts by Gastrich to force Wikipedia to be conform to his views of what is and is not a "Christian?" His claim that Wikipedia makes such a "dictinction" between Christians and Catholics is entirely disingenuous, and is influenced by his own peculiar reading of Wikipedia text and his anti-Catholic bias.  Notice his "I" talk:  "All I see is that he is an evolution proponent," according to Gastrich.  Not only is that good enough for him, and should require no more thought or consideration, it must be good enough for everyone else, as well, at least at Wikipedia.  A dispassionate view, uncolored by religious biases, clearly reveals that Catholicism is simply a specific form of Christianity, as distinguished from Protestantism.  One can further study the history of the Christian movement and understand the roots of the controversy, but they must not be allowed to color the content of a secular encyclopedic resource.  If all Gastrich sees is an evolution proponent, in large part because Miller is Catholic, then his view is slanted, biased, and laden with a non-neutral POV.  WarriorScribe 21:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not make that distinction.Harvestdancer 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)




 * Neither does history or common sense. There are many kinds of Christians, though we all know about the "true Scotsman" application with respect to that sort of thing, and we also know about the general arrogance of those whom claim that their particular or favored group has it right, while everyone else has it wrong, somewhere or somehow.
 * It is fair to say that, in a very general sense, all Christians are creationists, that is, if we decide that "creationist" is someone who believes that the Universe was created by God through some mechanism or another. However, the last 45 years or so, particularly, have forced a specific view upon us, that is, that creationists are generally thought to be those who view certain specific passages in the Bible as literal history, leading them to believe that the Universe, and the Earth with it, were created in literally six, twenty-four hour days.  If that's the accepted definition of a creationist, then there are lots of Christians who don't meet that criteria, just as there are also lots of Christians who don't think that God had any hand in the natural history of the Universe beyond its initial creation.  Of course, to some, these aren't "real Christians," either.  In the end, however, Christian theology and tradition says that it's God who makes the determination and it's God who knows.  No one, claiming to be a Christian, has the right to decide whether someone is a Christian or not (and I can certainly debate those aspects of Scripture that are interpreted to say otherwise).  If Kenneth Miller says he's a Christian, that's good enough.  If he's a practicing Catholic, that's evidence of his Christianity, since Catholicism is a Christian religion.  WarriorScribe 22:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WarriorScribe said, "there are also lots of Christians who don't think that God had any hand in the natural history of the Universe beyond its initial creation." Actually, there aren't any at all.  Christianity is a theistic religion (believing that God never ceases to maintain and control all of creation), while what you described is deism (believing in God as creator, but not believing in His providence). -- Chris 04:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A Christian may well believe that God never ceases to maintain control and control all of creation. But that is not the same as believing that God is continually creating. I believe the creationist category should be reserved for Christinas who believe the later. As Warrior scribes points out below and i have mentioned here too, the latter group is not insignificant. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think any Christians believe the latter. I think all Christians recognize that biblical creation represents one point in time, in the past. They recognize that matter is neither created or destroyed, now. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean and how this should effect the categories? --Jason Gastrich 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Michael Behe definitely believes that creation has happened after the first living organism. He does not seem to believe in kinds being formed intheir present form. I should point out that i misspoke inthe paragraph above.  i meant to say the the creationist category should be reserved for those that believe in the biblical creation or Behe style creation. Those Christians that believe that "God never ceases to maintain control and control all of creation" but believe the creation occured prior to the formation of earth should not be considered creationists. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed not, and they tend to have their own viewpoints and believe what they believe despite attempts to classify or pigeonhole them into neat little categories. WarriorScribe 20:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's what I said (or, rather, wrote), and I stand by it. That you don't know of any and appear to subscribe to unnecessarily restrictive definitions of Christianity and theism does not mean that those concepts do not have application outside of your experience.  Theism is simply a belief one or more higher beings with "godlike" attributes, but it does not require that he/they/it continually demonstrate those attributes or that he/they/it always demonstrate and never relinquish control or guidance of the Creation.  I've run into quite a few Christians (def., followers of Jesus) who are pretty close to deistic in their view of God's participation in the Universe.  In fact, before I ultimately abandoned the faith, entirely, that was my view, having seen no evidence of God's intervention, anywhere.  Regardless, arguments from incredulity are hardly compelling, but they should at least be properly identified.  It may be that you don't know any Christians like that, but they do exist, and I suspect that you may find that they compose a larger percentage of professing Christians than might be supposed, if they were to be honest with themselves and with you.  WarriorScribe 05:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To David: Wiki has categories for Roman Catholics, Methodists, evangelical Christians, born again Christians, etc. This is all I was saying.


 * "I only see a label from someone that he is a Roman Catholic and (not that this matters much, but) Wiki seems to make a distinction between Christians [emphasis added] and Roman Catholics." I love it when they have to backpedal... WarriorScribe 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You may have a good example of someone who is a Christian who is not a creationist, but we won't know unless we read what he says on the topics of his faith and belief about creation. For the sake of categorization, we might want to research this man's words or just call it an abberation. --Jason Gastrich


 * There is no doubt that there are different sects of Christianity. i agree with that interpretation. but the issue here is how do deal with Christians that do not believe in the creation of life on earth. I do not know if Kenneth Miller is such a person although he is the one public figure that comes to mind. I do not believe he is an abberation, many in the Church of England think that way, many scientists who are religious think that way too. So you need to consider their position under the umbrella of Christianity.  Despit the fact that your own version of Christianity does not harbor such beliefs this does not mean you can shoe horn others into wikipedia categories.  In summary, it is wrong to say ALL Christians are creationists. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Wiki's article on creationism, the category of Creationist can include other faiths. For instance, it would be fully possible for a theistic evolutionist to reject Christ and still believe in creation. Now, if the term category were "biblical creation," that would be another story.
 * Hope these things help. Glad we could discuss this. --Jason Gastrich 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes and this leads to the problem of what is the category intending to convey. i was under the impression it was a narrow category that was representing the subset of Christians that belive in biblical creation. If it is the very broad version of Creationism then you open the category up to Hindu and other religions. I don't particularly care how it is defined (braod or narrow) but i was under the impression that it was the meant to be the sub set of Christianity category. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At this point, I see only two options. 1) We follow Wiki's definition of creationism and use that as our benchmark for the Creationists category. This means it would remain a broad category and include anyone who believes God created. 2) We delete the Creationists category and use YEC, OEC, and perhaps other more specific categories. What do I say? I'm open to the consensus, but I like the idea of having both general and specific categories, so I vote we keep Creationists and follow Wiki's definition of creationism when it comes to each entry's conclusion. --Jason Gastrich 22:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We should continue this discussion at Category talk:Creationists. It is abit out of place on this talk page. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't get beyond the statement that Keyes is a neocon. The writers lack of knowledge was exposed at that point - either about Keyes' views or what a neocon is precisely.

Campaigns
"A member of the Republican Party, he has run twice for President of the United States and three times for the U.S. Senate from 1988 to 2004."

How about at least a brief description of each of these? --Kalmia 21:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Which house at Harvard?
This article states Keyes lived in Winthrop House at Harvard, while the Adams House (Harvard University) article states he resided there. Which is accurate? -- Zim Zala Bim ( talk ) 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
To me, this whole article, and some of the discussions, seems to have been written by a speechwriter or staffer of his. The whole article is from the POV that Mr. Keyes is some sort of perfect person who can do no wrong. 75.53.140.92 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a specific problem? The article is supposed to be factual and not make moral judgments about Keyes one way or the other. It does talk about some criticisms of his actions during the Illinois Senate race. -- B  22:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with B, this article is actually one of the few articles on political figures that sticks to the facts, plain and simple. It mentions what he's done and said, without assigning a viewpoint of it.  For example, in explaining the controversy over his radio comments about homosexuals, the article presents both his side of what he said (the media misrepresented what he said) and the criticism of those words (that he indirectly said his daughter is a hedonistic sinner).  It doesn't give either viewpoint more or less details, facts, or credence than the other.  I don't see how a POV tag would apply here at all. --Jdcaust 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, B removed the POV tag because no one has presented a good reason to include it. This morning, the same anonymous user who posted above - 75.53.140.92 - retagged the article without explaining and without responding the comments here.  Continually tagging an article inappropriately constitutes abuse of tags vandalism.
 * This has been discussed here and decided the NPOV tag is not necessary. If you want to tag this article, sign in and give a good explanation.  Constantly making changes anonymously only raises suspicions that you're here with an agenda.  I removed the POV tag again and will continue to remove until such times as consensus decision is reached that its even needed.
 * I'll also be watching this page and will report your IP to the admins if this continues. Wikipedia is here for all of us to discuss, contribute, and attempt to reach a consensus. Its not for you to sneakily make changes without answering for them.--Jdcaust 15:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alan Keyes is Making Sense
"Others pointed to pressure by outside groups, such as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Palestinian lobby, as contributing to the show's premature end." The link after that quote is to an extremist right-wing website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.255.130 (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WorldNetDaily is sensationalist reporting, but I wouldn't call it "extremist right-wing". I agree it should have a better source or not be included, though. -- B  22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'll take up the task of finding a better source. --Jdcaust 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did some search and couldn't come up with a better source. I went and read the source and it actually names neither group in the article, so I removed those groups.  The article does raise some good points about how Keyes' ratings were not bad and that MSNBC itself reported that his ratings were growing.  I do feel like this is an important counterpoint and represents all sides better.  I reworded the sentence and included another with another source to clarify.  Let me know what you guys think. --Jdcaust 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in favor of Keyes
Last night, I looked at this profile and saw there was absolutely nothing written about him as a controversial figure. In fact, reading this you would have little idea that he even ran for Senator of Illinois. There is also absolutely nothing written about the fact that he and his wife essentially disowned their daughter for being gsy - not unlike Randall Terry. So what I did was create a "controversy" section detailing some of Keyes's more outrageous moments, the Mary Cheney incident for example. Then there was the fact he criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign in New York and yet ran for Illinois senate where he had no prior connections.

The fact that all of these things are omitted appears to be part of a campaign to make Keyes look better than he is. All I know is that if nothing else, there needs to be a controversy section because being an outspoken anti-gay, anti-abortionist activist, he should at least have a controversy section to detail his views of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism".

Problem is we only have one side of the story. We don't know if Keyes's daughter is telling the truth or is lying.

Is it not also notable to that this Politician who was rabidly anti-gay also has a daughter who came as a lesbian a few years back?

He is the editor of renewamerica.us, which runs articles espousing the use of violence against political moderates and liberals. He is positioning himself more as a cult leader a la Koresh, Randy Weaver and William Cooper.

Yes, absolutely seems to me that this article was scrubbed by the Keyes camp or his supporters... What about all the money Keyes illegally pocketed during previous campaigns, especially in his notorious Maryland bids for office? Keyes public record paints the undeniable portrait of a crook, but you'd never know that from this article! 64.81.224.123 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with all of your comments above are that they are all unsubstantiated. In order to include that, one needs to write it properly (non-POV, just the facts) and include referenced sources.  Coming on here and complaining that the article doesn't present things the way you want them to be solves nothing.  Its obvious you have an agenda here other than writing an encyclopedic article. --Jdcaust 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In political articles, some people think that if the article doesn't have the same dislike for the person that they do, it isn't neutral. I've looked over this article on several occasions as it is a frequent vandalism target and it seems neutral to me.  -- B  03:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned about the vandalism below and I'll be watching the page. Notice that most of it is from anonymous IPs.  I traced the IPs and they are all from generic service providers like AT&T. --Jdcaust 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maya Keyes, again
We had this subject pretty much right and then there were some edits that messed it up. First, it was deleted entirely as "tabloid fodder". An estrangement between a bio subject and one of his or her children is notable in that subject's life and deserves to be included. Then it was re-added but with the assertion that she came out during the 2004 Senate campaign. The assertion was unsourced and I think it's incorrect -- as far as I know, her public announcement didn't occur until 2005.

I've removed the mention from the campaign section and restored it to the section on "Early life and family", with the supporting citation. JamesMLane t c 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it. I was having a block about how to include it, but the way you did it seems to fit best.--Jdcaust 19:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently submitted for GA Status
I submitted for GA status on the recommendation of the A-Class reviewer Kranar drogin. If we get GA status, I'll submit for another peer review to make this better for a FA submission. Anyone have any thoughts on this? If not, I'll go ahead with my plan. --Jdcaust 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikignat's Changes
Wikignat, consensus determined in the discussion here disagrees with some of the changes you made and I have reverted some of them. If you would like certain things to be included, please come discuss them before changing those things that have been discussed.

The only one I have reverted for now is the Maya Keyes mention about how she was cut off.

1. Your "rumor debunked" source comes from an AM morning talk show that cannot be checked or referenced.

2. The source used for this was a reliable source.

3. This situation has been reported and mentioned via multiple news outlets and by Maya Keyes herself. Alan Keyes has not refuted this once.

4. The facts are worded in a way so that the reader knows that this is what Maya Keyes herself states. This is a fact, whether you believe it or not.

Please see Reliable Sources before deleting this again.

I will leave your deletion of the picture. Admittedly, the picture was not a good one. However, to say that the photo was "intentionally unflattering" is not assuming of good faith on the part of the editors. Assuming good faith in changes is important, even if you disgree with other editors.

As for the rest of your changes, I'm going to check into them myself and see if they are valid or not.

--Jdcaust 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I took out the "expert" part of the scholar section. The source does not support this.  I also merged scholar into diplomat.  It fits there and removes a too-short scholar section.  Also, I realized that you said Dlabot's editting was vandalism.  I'm calling you on this.  That was not vandalism.  All the editors here have worked hard in order to make this a good, NPOV article.  Please read WP:Assume Good Faith andWP:Vandalism for an overview of these topics.  You need a refresher. --Jdcaust 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, after reviewing your changes, I left the scholar stuff. The material is sourced, even if it does come from Keyes' own site.  Its not like the source says he's the best guy in the world or anything.  Its all factual information.  I left out the picture, as I explained above.  I also left out the Borat reference.  It may not fit there, but I saved it to see if I could find a place for it later.  Any disagreements, please come here and discuss before changing again.  I don't want to get into an edit war or anything. --Jdcaust 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikignat 18:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC) : The "throw the daughter out of the house" rumor was publicly debunked yesterday by Alan Keyes himself on the radio show I cited above. I will keep an eye on the AlanKeyes.com website, in case an MP3 or transcript arises. In the meantime, I suggest embargoing this claim, and any similar sensationalized tabloid material. In addition, the sexual orientation of the daughter is irrelevant to this page. I do believe her own Wikipedia page addresses this trivia sufficiently. I appreciate your other edits.
 * Thanks for coming on and explaining. I'm not saying that she's right or wrong.  In fact, if you can find Alan Keyes' refutation, please include it, as it is important for NPOV.  I'll check the Bill Haft site as well.  However, I still believe we need to include it.  We discussed it above and I actually advocated for not including it.  See the "Why is this listed under the 2004 election?"  However, JamesMLane made a good point above in "Maya Keyes, again" saying "An estrangement between a bio subject and one of his or her children is notable in that subject's life and deserves to be included."  I agreed with him and we moved it to personal.  As for him saying its not true, I believe both points should be there.  At that point, it comes across as "he said, she said" which is probably the way it really is, anyway.  For now, we should leave it because it is sourced and mentions that its her side of things.  With both of us looking for a source for his side, I think we should be able to find it.


 * Thanks for coming here and helping out. Your contributions are appreciated, especially the Reagan Administration part.  We can always use more solid editors for these things.  Hopefully, I didn't come across too harsh in my defense of the page. :)
 * --Jdcaust 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikignat 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks. The problem with the above rationalization for keeping this trivia is:

1. The original source is not credible (entries on a teen blog);

2. What was possibly a family dispute years ago may have since been resolved;

3. The inclusion of this data is obviously meant to cast aspersions on the public figure who is the subject of this page;

4. That public figure publicly has challenged these claims about his family life;

5. This is not a "he-said/she-said" because his daughter has not refuted his side of the story.

Again, I urge the removal of an accusation that stands on such faulty ground. There is no justification for its inclusion.

Wikignat 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) On another note, have found several scanned news clippings on the service of Alan Keyes in the Reagan Administration from the website reaganarchives.com. Expect more information added to the new section I created. I do believe the public is best served by facts, rather than trivia.
 * That would be great and we're glad to have you here. As a side note, Dlabot did remove the sentence about Keyes' speeched.  It does violate WP:SELFPUB because I checked it after he mentioned it.  He left the rest, however, because it is allowed under WP:SELFPUB.  So, thanks to Dlabot for keeping us on our toes about this stuff. --Jdcaust 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the scholar thing, I just want to explain my reasoning. As it stands now, it simply reports that his job title at the American Enterprise Institute was 'Resident Scholar'.  No problem there, not only is it  verifiable but it has the added benefit of being true. (OK, I know our standard is not truth, but still...)  But having a 'Scholar' section  implied that Keyes had achieved some sort of independent notoriety as a scholar. That sort of implication would have to be verified by a secondary relible source. Dlabtot 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to Maya Keyes, the material clearly belongs in the article. A significant number of readers (probably most of them, in fact) wouldn't consider an intra-family estrangement of this sort to be "trivia".  Certainly some readers, interested only in Keyes's diplomatic service, would consider it trivia, but to them it would also be trivia to note that he even has children, or is married.  We have to present a complete picture of the bio subject's life.


 * As to Wikignat's specific points:


 * "1. The original source is not credible (entries on a teen blog);"
 * When I restored the information I sourced it to this story on the CBS News website. That story also refers to her interview with the Washington Post.  Dlabtot has now added yet another published source.
 * "2. What was possibly a family dispute years ago may have since been resolved;"
 * Pure speculation, but even if it had been resolved, the fact of its occurrence while it lasted would be a notable aspect of Keyes's life.
 * "3. The inclusion of this data is obviously meant to cast aspersions on the public figure who is the subject of this page;"
 * I agree with Jdcaust's reference to WP:AGF. On what basis do you impugn the good faith of the editors who've supported including this information?  Would you sling similar accusations against any editor who included any uncomplimentary fact about a public figure in that person's bio?  At any rate, the issue isn't whether the editors had pure motives, but whether the edit conforms to Wikipedia policies.  I'm sure some right-wing editors are happy to include the Monica Lewinsky matter in the Bill Clinton bio, because they rejoice in every opportunity to cast aspersions on him, but the material is obviously proper regardless of the editors' motives.
 * "4. That public figure publicly has challenged these claims about his family life;"
 * So we'd better edit the O.J. Simpson article to take out the reports of allegations against him that he's publicly challenged. If Keyes has finally addressed the subject, his position should certainly be stated.  Any reader who agrees with your implication that the story is thereby conclusively refuted will have the information about Keyes's position and will be free to ignore all other evidence.  Any reader who thinks Maya Keyes is more likely to be telling the truth will have her version.  We don't need to draw conclusions on behalf of the reader, especially in an area where there's a legitimate basis for disagreement.
 * "5. This is not a 'he-said/she-said' because his daughter has not refuted his side of the story."
 * For more than two years, Keyes hadn't refuted her version of the story. So what?  That wasn't enough  basis to assert it as an undisputed fact; we instead reported what she said and attributed it to her.  Now, you're saying that Keyes disputed it yesterday, after more than thirty months of silence, and his daughter, in the ensuing 24 hours, hasn't commented publicly -- so that proves she was wrong?  Sorry, but it still is a "he-said/she-said".  Someone involved in a matter like this isn't obligated to keep reiterating the same facts over and over.  She's made her statement and is entitled to get on with her life.  If she emulates her father by maintaining silence on the subject for the next thirty months, that still won't disprove her version, any more than his silence disproved his version.  Of course, if she makes a public statement that materially changes her earlier one, that should be included in the article. JamesMLane t c 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Section headings
Right now, 'Diplomat' includes info about his stints at AEI and CAGW, while the 'Contributions to the Reagan Administration' section is exclusively about his role as a diplomat. I propose merging both these sections into a single section titled 'Career'. Dlabtot 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikignat 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I'm all for putting things under their proper headers, but when we lump everything in one place, readability is sacrificed. I agree the AEI portion does not fit under 'Dipolomat', and propose that it was a better fit under 'Scholar' before Jdcaust made that merge.
 * It's not like Keyes has had a long, distinguished career full of so many accomplishments that it would be hard to read them all. He worked in the Reagan administration, he worked for some right-wing think tanks, he worked as a radio and TV host, and ran unsuccessfully for several political offices. Putting every little thing that has happened to him into a separate section seems to unnecessarily pad his resume. Dlabtot 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I merged the scholar section because it had so little substance. I tried to find more sources for the Scholar section before I did, but there was nothing out there.  I agree that sections that are too big sacrifice readability.  However, taking a few sentences out and giving them their own section chops things up too much and sacrifices appearance.  I think a career section would probably best, as long as it is broken into several separate paragraphs, organized by chronology. --Jdcaust 23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. You've been making good edits so far, why stop now? Dlabtot 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi Automatic Peer Review
Another peer review this time a Semi Automatic Peer Review has been posted at the above link to help this article achieve GA. Good luck with the changes and improvements that it reuqests. SriMesh | talk  02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Renew America
Why does Renew America redirect to this page? The Alan Keyes article makes no mention of the website (renewamerica.us). -Phoenixrod 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, I can read after all. I must not have searched correctly on the page. Never mind! -Phoenixrod 23:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this listed under the 2004 election?
"Ironically, Keyes' daughter, Maya Marcel-Keyes, made a public appearance the following Valentine's day in Annapolis, Maryland as a gay rights activist. Keyes responded by kicking her out of their Maryland home and suspending payments of her college tuition."

I consider this a POV smear, given the context -- especially since it uses words like "ironically." Escp99 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. That sentence is horribly inappropriate.  For one, if it occurred the following Valentine's day, it has nothing to do with the 2004 election.  But more importantly than that, this is a biography of Alan Keyes, not a biography of his daughter.  -- B  12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Escp99 that the passage shouldn't say "Ironically". I agree with  B  that the point doesn't belong in the discussion of the 2004 election.  Nevertheless, it certainly belongs in the article.  Alan Keyes's daughter has stated publicly  that he threw her out of the house.  That's a notable item in her bio and in his. JamesMLane t c 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The way to word it would be to say, "Keyes' daughter claimed in her blog that her father threw her out of her apartment." This is mentioned more clearly in the article on her.  It would be as simple as copying it from there, with source, and putting it here. --Jdcaust 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Use of "claimed" is generally inappropriate because of the connotation that the statement is false, or at best dubious. A simple "Keyes's daughter stated...." would be best.  Of course, any denial or explanation by Keyes should also be reported. JamesMLane t c 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Claimed is a bit of a loaded word.  I'll try and move the stuff over from the article on her over here and use the word stated instead.--Jdcaust 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After a lot of research, I've concluded that Maya Keyes' getting kicked out had nothing to do with the 2004 election. In 2005, she marched in an anti-Bush parade, which infuriated her father.  Her parents cut her off financially.  My question is, should this be included?
 * 1. Its already in Maya's wikipedia article and she's tagged here a lot.
 * 2. It was never reported by a major media outlet and there has never been any major outcry about it. Thus, I don't think it can be argued that it was any sort of controversy or related to any election.
 * 3. The only sources I have are an interview in the Advocate, which mentions this in passing, and her personal blog, which never actually identifies her as the author.
 * Basically, I'm not sure that this fits the standards to be included. If the consensus disagrees, I'll add it since I already did most of the research.--Jdcaust 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Though I'm new at this, and dont' know much about the Keyes' family, doesn't Maya's bio say her folks requested she move out of the campaign apartment after marching against the 2005 inauguration? Alan's bio should probably not infer any connection to her sexual orientation.Justnidea 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the sources upon which the article is based. Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability and notability. Dlabtot 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, please also see the discussion below, headed "Wikignat's Changes" Dlabtot 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination: 29 October 2007
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria No concerns about prose, images, and the like. There are, however, three fact tags; one in the "Diplomat" section and two in the "Political campaigns" section. Because that is not enough to quick-fail the article, I am placing this on hold for seven days so editors can source uncited material or remove it. Please leave a note on my talkpage when the changes are made.  N F 24 (radio me!Editor review) 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Alright, I fixed the three citations. I found a good source for one, an ok source for the other, and deleted one fact because I couldn't find any sources. The ok source is from the diplomat section.  The only thing I could find was an article about the straw polls from his election campaign site.  I'll remove it if you think its unreliable.  Let me know.  The deleted fact was pretty contentious, so if unsourced, its better off being deleted anyway.
 * One other question. I noticed in the review under "No original research" the article received a "?".  Is there something questionable in the article that I can fix? In any case, I think this covers what you wanted.  I've posted this on your talk page. Thanks for reviewing this.  I also appreciate getting the chance to make the last few changes to get this up to snuff. --Jdcaust 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-assesment: 30 October 2007
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria As my only concern was the uncited statements and those have been fixed, there are no other concerns with the article.  N F 24 (radio me!Editor review) 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Alan Keyes is Making Sense
"The last episode was broadcast on June 27, 2002. In its brief run, Making Sense received ratings comparable to MSNBC's Scarborough Country, the eventual successor to Keyes' show." The "link" after this to the Nielsen Ratings is just a link to Nielsen's Wikipedia page. I have no idea it's true that Scarbourough Country and this have similar ratings but if it's true there should be a better link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puma321 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw this buried amongst other topics here on the talk page. I checked it and that's strange that the citation links back to Nielsen Media Research from wikipedia.  I'm going to look into this and see what I can find. --Jdcaust 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Counter-terrorism and international affairs citation.
Dlabot, we seem to disagree on this source. I admit that the source is less than perfect. It comes from Keyes' own campaign site. However, I disagree that it fails WP:SELFPUB. It simply describes what he worked on while with the National Security Council. Referring to WP:SELFPUB, material from self-published and questionable sources can be used. It is relevant to his notability, it is not contentious or self-serving, it does not involve third parties, it is directly related to Alan Keyes, there's no doubt who wrote it (his campaign folks), and the article is not primarily based on his own sources. Which of these criteria do you feel the source fails? I also asked our good article editor to assess this source and let me know if he thinks it doesn't belong (see above on the talk page). Although he just finished his review, I have yet to hear from him that he thinks it is inappropriate. In the end, though, I do plan to replace as many of these self-published sources as possible before FA nomination. --Jdcaust 03:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Material from his campaign website, while he is running for President, stating that he he formerly 'worked on counter-terrorism', is nothing if not self-serving. It advances his campaign by way of padding his resume. What do you think the term 'self-serving' means?   Dlabtot 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it certainly IS NOT relevant to his notability. Alan Keyes is not notable for working on counter-terrorism - assuming that he really did work on counter-terrorism - he is notable for other reasons. Dlabtot 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If he really did do some notable work on counter-terrorism, it will no doubt have been noted by some reliable third-party source. I'm sure that all politician's campaign websites have many wonderful things to say about the candidates who sponsor them.  But those things do not belong on Wikipedia unless they appear in a reliable third-party source. Dlabtot 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I couldn't find anything else out there in my searching. Besides, its not like sayingtha he was involved in that is leaving out some major part of his life.  I went ahead and took it out altogether. --Jdcaust 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say, it's been a distinct pleasure working with you on this article. Too bad every Wikipedia experience doesn't work like this. Dlabtot 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, its nice to have someone around who challenges, yet remains fair and level-headed. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.. --Jdcaust 21:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is debatable
The tone and content of this article, and the absence of a "Criticisms" section suggest to me that it is maintained in it's current state by people who are far from neutral in their POV. Someone should challenge it - I'm too lazy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.148.156 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, several editors have reached consensus that this is NPOV. Further, so have A-review and WP:GA teams who would never have approved the high rating of this article if it was POV. The fact that you disagree with all of the above makes me think that you are far from neutral in your POV.  This article was once very POV pro-Keyes.  With the efforts of Dlabtot, myself, and others, this article has come up to par in being very neutral. --Jdcaust 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, just look at the GA review criteria listed above by NF24 and look at his strong qualifications on his user page. He specifically assessed neutrality and gave us a GA passing grade.  Please review WP:NPOV. --Jdcaust 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course all editors have a POV. WP:NPOV is about including all significant views. Your contributions or suggestions as to how to improve the article are encouraged. Dlabtot 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro-life vs anti-abortion
Regarding OldakQuill's edit - while I agree that 'pro-life' is a highly politicised term, nevertheless, it is the term that is in use... I note that the anti-abortion redirects to pro-life, anyway. I don't really object to your edit, but I'm not sure I think it's necessary. 'Pro-family', however, really is meaningless in political terms... however, if it was cited rather than stated - e.g. "Keyes called his platform 'pro-family'" - that would be more acceptable. Dlabtot 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pro-family is a subtly POV word.  However, I think the designation of pro-life vs. anti-abortion is a matter of opinion.  Many pro-choice people prefer to call it anti-abortion, whereas many on the other side prefer to be called pro-life.  So, a "pro-life" person could say that anti-abortion is also highly politcized and non-POV.  The question is, what is the most neutral characterization?  I checked the source and it specifically uses the term "pro-life," but it also uses the term "pro-family."  The best way I can see is to put the platform in quotations as a direct reference to the campaign's own wording.  I went ahead and changed it back this way. --Jdcaust (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After I previewed the change I suggest above, I noticed that the quotations only made things worse. First of all, it makes it look a bit POV the other way.  Second, it makes it look like a direct quote from Keyes' campaign instead of a quote from the source.  Instead, I added "family values" instead of pro-family, as that's a less POV description of that part of his platform.  Secondly, I changed anti-abortion back to pro-life.  After doing some research, I determined that pro-life is the best NPOV description.  First off, as Dlabtot explained, anti-abortion redirects to pro-life, so pro-life would seem to be the proper usage on wikipedia.  Secondly, the major news agencies - CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, etc. - use the term pro-life fairly regularly when referring to politicians' positions.  As it is, just like one side prefers to be referred to in a positive "pro-" way (pro-choice), it seems only fair that the other side receive the same treatment. --Jdcaust (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike 'pro-life', 'pro-family' has not entered the political lexicon as referring to one side of an established and well-known debate. Because most human beings on the planet Earth are 'pro-family', the term is meaningless - except as a way for folks to imply that those who disagree with them are 'anti-family'. I don't really think Wikipedia should be endorsing that kind of ugly political rhetoric by including it here.


 * Here's my proposal. Rather than characterizing his campaign platform, we just present information, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.  How about: "Keyes again campaigned for the Republican nomination in the 2000 primary cycle, winning support among religious conservatives for his opposition to abortion and the Federal income tax and other social issues. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/30/president.2000/alabama.straw/ "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlabtot (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. It avoids touchy words altogether.  --Jdcaust (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How, why??
I have not seen all of the debates; but, I have seen several. If he had been in any others, I do not recall it. I've been attempting to figure this out for more than an hour.

I do want this article to confront this oddity. How did this occur? During the global warming  discussion, even  Fred Dalton Thompson  indicated bewilderment.

What is this? This article should be more clear,..... ; has he won a campaign?:


 * Alan Keyes (born August 7, 1950) is an American political activist, author and former diplomat. He ran for President of the United States in 1996 and 2000 and for the U.S. Senate in 1988, 1992, and 2004 as a Republican. He was an announced candidate in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.


 * Keyes served in the U.S. Foreign Service, was appointed Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under President Ronald Reagan, and served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs from 1985 to 1987.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

His favorite television program is Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
So what? What makes this significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article? Dlabtot (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I'm not sure. Its a remnant from the old trivia section I broke down and spread through the article. I just copied and pasted it up to his personal life section. I've taken it out. --Jdcaust (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF?
Why is this article stuffed with partisan claims from the right and far right, while not even mentioning that Alan Keyes is tremendously unpopular within the black community? I'm not saying we need to call him an Uncle Tom, but, well, we ought to say that he's pretty much the canonical example of one in many people's minds. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to add something, just find a citation to a reliable source, and put it in. Just be sure it adheres to WP:BLP.  Dlabtot (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is NOT stuffed with partisan claims. It has passed WP:NPOV but both the GA article review team and a VERY thorough A-list review. Consensus here has discussed and determined this article to be NPOV as well.  I've removed the unbalanced tag and re-added the information about the boycott about Keyes' show.  I specifically discussed the boycott source with the A-list reviewer and he approved it.  As long as we stick to simply using source as a reference that boycott exists, we are ok.  If you would like to make further changes, please discuss them here with the regular editors before making them again.  --Jdcaust (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

CFR?
I can't find any info regarding if he's at all affiliated with the CFR or Trilateral Commission. Could someone provide info regarding this? Phil.andy.graves (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the membership list on the Trilateral Commission website. He's not listed there.  As for the Council on Foreign relations (I'm assuming this is what you meant by CFR), I can't find any sources on this. --Jdcaust (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By "this," I mean on Alan Keyes' being affiliated with the CFR. --Jdcaust (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Invited?
"... to which he had not been invited. He was invited, but wasn't invited..." Umm, what? 68.45.214.20 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone anonymous just added it recently. I reverted it. Not only does this not make sense, but the source says he wasn't invited. --Jdcaust (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Iowa caucus and self-published sources
To the authors who worked on the Iowa caucus information under the 2008 Presidential Election section, I appreciate your constructive edits, but I had to remove them. Please read Biographies of Living Persons. Under these guidelines, this material cannot be included for the following reasons:
 * It is contentious.
 * It involves claims about third parties.
 * It is self-serving.

I understand your desire to include this information, but biographies of living persons come under much more scrutinous guidelines than the rest of Wikipedia. As such, I tried to find some reliable third party sources that covered this, but found only one from the Iowa State Daily. I rewrote this informaiton using that source and included what it said about Keyes' campaign's stance. If you can find additional unbiased, reliable sources for this, please include them. Before you do, however, please check them with the guidelines at Verify and WP: Biographies of Living Persons. --Jdcaust (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, self-published, in relation to the Alan Keyes article, means published by Alan Keyes or an organization he is affiliated with. So I'm not sure why you are bringing WP:SELFPUB into it. Maybe I missed something. Dlabtot (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The most recent information added regarding the Iowa caucuses concerned Keyes' anger at not being included on the ballot and not having his vote tally reported. With some searching that information is verifiable using reliable third party sources.  However, the recent edits on January 19th included information about the Iowa GOP's "official" stance, as well as why Keyes wasn't included on the ballot, at least according to Keyes.  All of this used releases AlanKeyes.com as sources.  This would be classic WP:SELFPUB, especially since the original wording used Keyes' campaign's stance as factual information. I may have been unclear as to the specific edits I was speaking about and I apologize for the confusion.  --Jdcaust (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Presidential Campaign
Does anyone have any information to add about his current presidential campaign? 137.112.170.240 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that there are attempts by a couple users to try to create a new campaign article. This is not problematic in itself, but WP is strongly against maintaining a second article which is identical to a section of the first. As it stands now, Alan Keyes presidential campaign, 2008 should continue to be redirected to the campaign section of this article, which I will do. Additional campaign notes should be brought here, not cut-and-pasted to a separate campaign article. The separate article should not be created until and unless there is enough material to indicate a significant article in its own right (two or three times as much as now), and editors demonstrate consensus on moving the content there. When that happens, the "main article" template can refer readers to the subarticle and this article's subsection can be cut back to a summary of the separate article. But right now there is way too much activity and moving and copying over about four paragraphs which do not merit their own article. Thanks all. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

...Personal life and Family
Is it just me or does the personal life and family section in this article talk predominantly on his education?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perennial candidate
I deleted the description of Keyes as a perennial candidate in the first paragraph of this article.

According to wiki article on the topic,

A perennial candidate is one who frequently runs for public office with a record of success that is either infrequent or non-existent. Perennial candidates are often either members of minority political parties or have political opinions that are not mainstream. They run not with any serious hope of gaining office, but in order to promote their views or themselves.

This description does not fit Keyes. He is a member of the Republican Party. He has held office, though not elected office. He was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador. In his 2000 run for the GOP presidential nomination, he received a considerable showing. He also ran as the GOP Illinois U.S. Senate candidate against Barack Obama in 2004.

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, when I read that description, I thought to myself that it fit Keyes quite well. Well, I support leaving it the way it is now, i would say that we should see if there is any consensus and keep the idea of putting it back in on the table. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject meets the definition of a perennial candidate. While he may have gained some support for his Illinois Senate race, it was quixotic and no one expected him to win. Indeed, he only got the nomination because no one from the state was willing to run. The fact that he was appointed to some posts does not mean he was ever successful as a candidate. Will Beback NS (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's short-circuit this. Many reliable sources call him a perennial candidate . JoshuaZ (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, he does not fit the definition in the Wikipedia article Perennial candidate. He is not a member of a minority political party.  His views are not "not mainstream" enough to get 14% of the votes in the Iowa caususes in 2000.  He was widely considered to be the winner of the 2000 debates.  At least in 2000 and 2004 he ran with the purpose of winning the office, not just to promote his views.  We must either not describe him as a perennial candidate, or else change the definition in that article so that it fits what the media refer to when the use the term, per the articles from JoshuaZ.

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey came third in Iowa in 2000. Being a member of a minority political party is not, according to the wikipedia article, is not the only criterion.  He has not won, but he keeps trying.  I think we may have a consensus developing.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Worst picture of Keyes
That's the worst picture I've ever seen of Keyes. Nothing better? Korky Day (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Iowa
The article reads "In the Iowa caucuses, Keyes did not appear on any of the election totals.[71] Keyes stated that many of the caucus locations he visited did not list him as a choice. His campaign CEO, Stephen Stone blamed much of this on the Keyes' decision to enter the race late and the media. Stone explained that the media would not acknowledge Keyes' candidacy, making it difficult to run an effective campaign.[71]"

I'm not sure if this is correct or not, but I'm on the Alan Keyes mailing list and acourding to them the Republican Party refused to count the votes he recieved in Iowa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.140.98 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained POV tag
you placed a POV tag on this article on April 23, but have not commented on this talk page. Please explain the specifics of the perceived dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He did say, "This entire page is a mess. It reads like an anti-Alan Keyes presentation." in his edit summary. But he wasn't very specific.  I just put a message on his talk page requesting his comment.  Thanks for bringing this up Dlabtot.  JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since that user has not stated any evidence to prove POV, I have decided to take off the tag. The user's action, I believe, is based purely on political hackery. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article in error regarding the Constitution Party
Alan Keyes never joined the Constitution Party. The CP currently has no party affiliate in Keyes' home state, Maryland, so it was impossible for Keyes to join the Constitution Party, even if he determined he wanted to.

Keyes publicly announced his departure from the GOP in Hazleton, PA ... but never did he announce joining the Constitution Party, nor did he join with them. This needs to be corrected.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which section says he joined the CP? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ... stated under Political Party, in the right-side-bar box, under Keyes' picture.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy in Illinois campaign
The section on the Illinois campaign currently states: "'[44] because of votes that Obama, a member of the Illinois Senate Judiciary committee and a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, cast in in 2001 against anti-abortion legislation (a package of three bills: SB1093, SB1094, SB1095) sponsored by Republican State Senator Patrick O'Malley, that Obama argued was too broad and was unconstitutional. The anti-abortion legislation, which was opposed by the Illinois State Medical Society, passed the Republican-controlled Illinois Senate, but failed to pass out of the Democratic-controlled Illinois House Judiciary committee.[45]'"

A minor problem is that "ref 44" is only incompletely accessible and one seems to cover something else (apart from the headline).

But more importantly, the quoted passage merely talks about "anti-abortion legislation". First of all, this seems a partisan term. Secondly, Keyes criticized Obama's votes as supporting infanticide. Obviously, Obama does not agree with that characterisation (his reasoning may also be given) but we should at least correctly report Keyes' criticism. This is much more important than a support by any Medical Society or even the ultimate success of the bill. We can include all this information (but wouldn't it also be relevant how similar bills fared in the U.S. Congress? Keyes after all brought this up). Str1977 (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Libelous statement removed
In the best interest of Wikipedia and its readers, please discontinue posting libelous statements dealing with Alan Keyes and his daughter.

The media fabricated story has been refruted by both parties. Proof below.

From Alan Keyes:

Alan Keyes on the Bill Haft show, WBOB 1320 AM, Jacksonville, FL October 2, 2007

Caller: A few years ago, Vice President Cheney’s daughter wrote a book, and she said, “When I told my father I was a lesbian, my father”--meaning Vice President Cheney--“said, ‘I’m your father, and I love you, and I only want you to be happy.’” Now, when your daughter was involuntarily outed in college, you discontinued her college, you cut her off. You essentially said, “Never darken my doorway again.”

Alan Keyes: That’s a lie. I’m sorry. That’s just a lie.

Caller: No, it’s not a lie….

Alan Keyes: Excuse me. Excuse me. Nothing like that ever happened. It’s a slander that they repeat in the press.

Now, I have been very clear that there is a difference between me and Vice President Cheney. I cannot approve of that which is sinful, and I do not, and I’m not going to pretend that it contributes to somebody’s happiness if they go down a road that destroys their relationship with Almighty God. That is what I have been very clear about. I am not going to be coerced into approving of that which is destructive of the soul of my daughter, and I don’t think that any parent worth their salt would be willing to do so.

Christ told us that “he who loves father or mother more than me does not love me. He who loves son or daughter more than me does not love me.” And I love Jesus Christ, so I will stand for the truth He represents, even though it breaks my heart.

But nothing like that you just said …. My daughter is my daughter, I love her, and I don’t engage in any kind of this way and that about her and with her in your eyes or in the eyes of any other public. That’s between her and me. But she has a home, she knows she does. As a matter of fact, she was in it for several months when she developed some troubles at Brown [University]. I never cut her off from this family. Never will. Because that would be something that would be wrong in the eyes of God.

But you just go ahead. You can believe the ungodly media in the slanders and lies that they spread, but I will tell you the truth. I will stand by my daughter as my blood and fulfill my obligations to her as a father and the obligations of a loving heart. One of those obligations is to stand for God’s truth, and not to depart from it, and that’s what I will do.

http://archives.alankeyes.com/play.php?mp3=123

From Maya Keyes:

Maya Keyes: Her Father's Daughter Interview by Will O'Bryan and Randy Shulman Metro Weekly: Washington DC's Gay and Lesbian Magazine Published on 02/24/2005

MW: The story we're hearing is that he disowned you, kicked you out.

MARCEL-KEYES: He cut off all financial support, but that's something that I can totally understand. I am working for things that he's directly opposed to. It doesn't make much sense for him to be [financially] supporting someone who is working against what he believes in.

MW: Are you upset with how the media have handled your story?

MARCEL-KEYES: There have been a lot of rabid media who don't care about anything I have to say. It's weird because all they want to know is do I hate my father, trying to get me to say bad things about him, trying to get me to say that I'm angry [at him], and none of that is true. He's my father and I respect his decisions.

MW: Do you think your father would be good in government?

MARCEL-KEYES: He has a lot of integrity. He's a very honest person and I think he would be better than a lot of politicians. He actually stands for what he believes in. I don't agree with what he believes in, but a lot of people in this country do. He would make a good representative for those people.

We see that even two years ago, Maya refused to claim she was "disowned," "kicked out," or even mistreated in any way by her parents. Rather, she has reserved her sharp criticism for the lying media, and vouches for the honesty and integrity of her father.

There is nothing to prove the bogus story true.

--Wikignat (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WIkignat, this has been discussed with you before. Its NOT slanderous, its NOT libel, and it IS true.  There is PLENTY to prove it true, including two reliable sources in the artcile.  Don't use hyperbole to overstate your positions and promote alarmism.  Multiple people have said you were wrong on this.  It is NOT a bogus story and Marcel-Keyes does NOT refute it or say it isn't true.  The above interview you just posted has her admitting that it happened!  Her saying that she understands it now does not make it false.  It also does not make previous reports about it less true.  If anything, it shows reconciliation between the parties, which I CAN add.  However, you need to stop overstating things.  Alan Keyes' says its wrong and that's fine. I'll add his side to things to remain NPOV.  However, I'm not removing well-sourced, important information.  Wikipedia is never going to be sued to slander or libel.  Further, this has been well-documented by multiple media outlets and NO ONE has said it was false, except Keyes.  People say things are false all the time, that doesn't make them false.  I repeat:  LEAVE IT IN.  Further edits of this nature will be considered disruptive.  For now, I'll add Keyes' side, then I'll add something about Marcel-Keyes' statements in the interview, provided I can verify the above sources per WP:Verify. --Jdcaust (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I checked both sources. I listend to the entire Bob Haft interview multiple times.  The changes I made include a thorough explanation of Alan Keyes' side, including direct quotes from the interview.  Further, I added Maya Keyes' assertion that the event WAS true (from the interview you posted above), but also included her saying she could understand it.  This not only represents WP:NPOV, but includes all the facts in a fair manner.  Do not remove this event again. --Jdcaust (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, is this a tabloid website? Why is something so trivial as a family matter like this even relevant? From all appearances, this family matter was resolved. You are relying on information that is nearly three years old, for the obvious reason to impugn the character of Mr. Keyes.

In the above interview, which is the most current information available on this matter, Alan Keyes said he has been slandered. The reference to his daughter on Wikipedia in all likelihood is a source of that slander.

In the interest of protecting Wikipedia from a lawsuit, please do not post this material again. I am removing it.

By fighting for inclusion of this trivality, even when questions have been repeatedly raised as to its relevancy and accuracy, you are showing a bias.

NOTE: The sexual orientation of his daughter is suitably addressed on her own Wiki page. Anyone interested in that personal aspect of her life can find it there. It is not relevant to the page about her father. --Wikignat (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikignat, your deletion of this material is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. I've restored it. Dlabtot (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikignat, your edits are becoming very disruptive. I am trying to come to a compromise here and include all sides, but you resist compromise completely.  I've also tried to assume good faith, one of the tenets of wikipedia, yet you absolutely refuse to extend the same controversy to me.  Its one thing if you disagree with me, its another to personally attack me.  Further, you are being completely ridiculous.  Don't pretend to be "protecting" wikipedia or users by this.  No one has sued wikipedia for libel or slander before and no one is going to for well-sourced information.  As to your points:
 * 1. This is important information to include. You understate the information when you say its simply about Maya Keyes' sexuality.  If the article said, "Alan Keyes has one daughter, Maya, who is a lesbian," you'd have a case.  However, the man allegedly cut his daughter off financially and this was verfied by multiple sources, one of which you actually provided.
 * 2. Just because Alan Keyes calls it slander, it doesn't make it slander. If anyone has a conflict of interest in this controversy, he does.  Trusting him and him alone when it comes to the truth of this would be dishonest.
 * 3. You claim I have a bias, but your attitude and the angry, mean-spirited responses do little to show your own neutrality. I have always worked for neutrality in this and every article I have worked on.  I want to direct you to WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith.  You need to read these thoroughly and learn to be a civil editor.
 * 4. As I said before, the information is well sourced and passes the criteria in both BLP and WP:Verify. Review those as well.
 * Wikignat, do NOT revert the material and blank it again. If you do, you will break the three reverts rule and be subject to a block. Dlabtot, thank you for your input. --Jdcaust (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that Keyes has finally chosen to address the issue, his self-serving statements of course deserve to be reported, with proper attribution, but that doesn't mean that we should adopt them as true. The incident is a significant one and deserves to be included in his bio.  As for Wikignat's assertion that "The reference to his daughter on Wikipedia in all likelihood is a source of that slander," I think a more likely source is the media stories that provide the basis for Wikipedia's coverage. JamesMLane t c 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is you can't assume the Keyes' family's statements are false, either. If the article mentions the incident, it needs to mention it in an unbiased way, providing both sides but not offering an opinion on who is telling the truth.  There are at least three possibilities (1) his daughter's initial statement to the Washington Post was false/exaggeration, (2) the Washington Post misrepresented/misinterpreted/exaggerated the daughter's truthful statement, or (3) the daughter's initial statement was true.  The article should take no position as to which of those is the case. --B (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not our role to say what is true or false, but rather to include all significant viewpoints that are cited to reliable sources. It is also incumbent upon us to not falsely characterize those citations.  Case in point, nowhere in the Metro Weekly interview does Maya say or imply that Keyes 'merely' cut off financial support.  Dlabtot (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * B and Dlabtot, thanks for cleaning up my attempted compromise. I threw it together before I left for work this morning and I didn't check for weasal words and the like before I put it up.  I'm all for making whatever changes it needs in order to present the information in the most encyclopedic way possible.  --Jdcaust (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Merely" was my word to contrast it with cut off support, cut off all communication, disowned her, etc. There are two different versions of the story and in some fashion, you need to clarify that her recent interview is a different version than the original Post report. --B (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there are not two different versions of her story, in spite of your repeated assertions to the contrary. Nowhere in the Metro Weekly interview does she say anything that contradicts her earlier statements. If you believe that she does say something in that interview that contradicts her earlier statements, please produce a quote of such.  Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something here. In the interview posted above, she was asked "The story we're hearing is that he disowned you, kicked you out."  Her answer was, "He cut off all financial support, but that's something that I can totally understand. ..."  So she was disagreeing with the claim that "he disowned you, kicked you out" and saying that he only "cut off all financial support". --B (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * She made an affirmative statement that he cut off financial support. However, she did not say anything beyond that. You are welcome to believe that her words mean something other than what she actually said, but unless your belief can be cited to a reliable source, it does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jdcast,


 * Thanks for the response. However, let me again contend for the neutrality and integrity of this page.  Keeping this irrelevant information degrades the page, rather than elevates it.


 * 1: You have not made the case as to why this information is important and must remain. It should therefore be removed.
 * 2: Not only has Alan Keyes called it slander, even his daughter has vouched for his honesty. There is no basis on which to maintain spreading specious information.
 * 3: I commend your attempts to compromise and be a fair editor, and I thank you for your advice. You are a good editor and have always been civil.  However, the only fair editing due to untrue information is to remove it.
 * 4: The amount of sources for misinformation does not justify inclusion of that misinformation. It's the truth that matters, and this tabloid story has been disproved.
 * 5: If you read Maya Keyes' account above, she claims to have been financially restricted as a result of her political activism, not specifically for her lifestyle choices. That makes her sexuality even less relevant to this page about her father.
 * 6: It is clear the family difficulty was resolved even more than two years ago. To include it on this page implies there continues to be a difficulty, as if it is any of our business.


 * I hope the above satisfies your concerns. I appeal for the removal of this slander.


 * --Wikignat (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikignat, you have a multiple editors telling you that you are wrong on this. I have made the case, as have other editors.  Consensus says it should stay.  Further, the information is well-sourced, passes WP:Verify, passes WP:BLP, and passes WP:NPOV.  Did you even read any of the policies I referred you to? You have two other editors besides myself trying to make sure it is as neutral as possible.  You are NOT the judge of what is and is not misinformation.  I am through arguing this with you.  You are stubborn and do not listen to anyone else's advice or arguments.  You make no attempt at compromise.  I have reverted your changes.  One more revert on your part and you fail the WP:3RR and I will not hesitate to report it and have you blocked.  Continued disruptive edits will require me to take this outside the talk page.  You are trying my patience. --Jdcaust (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jdcaust, thank you for your patience. As you can see, no editor has yet responded to the points I have just raised, including yourself. Nor has anyone given an objective reason for the inclusion of information that:
 * 1: Is not sourced in provable fact.
 * 2: Is not relevant to this page.
 * 3: Has been called slander by the person who is the subject of this page.


 * Can you explain why this information must be included? Thank you.
 * --Wikignat (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. It is sourced as well as anything can on wikipedia. The information says nothing that isn't in the sources. For the third time, read WP:Verify.
 * 2. That's your opinion. Multiple others disagree. It was discussed and decided long ago.  Even you gave up on this argument after you tried to remove this the first time.  Are you the sole and only standard of relevance?
 * 3. As explained before, it doesn't matter.
 * I have explained and explained again. I'm beginning to realize no explanation will satisfy you.  The best you will get is a neutral presentation of both sides of the argument.  This is per wikipedia policy.  As far as I'm concerned, this is over.  If you would like make more constructive edits here as you did with his diplomat information, please do.  As for this matter, its time to move on. --Jdcaust (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikignat, more than two months ago I posted a detailed rebuttal of your arguments. You haven't responded.  As to your latest enumeration of three points:
 * 1.The article in its current version reports the FACT of what Maya Keyes said. It also reports the FACT of what Alan Keyes said.  The sourcing for both those points is clear.  Inclusion of the principals' opinions, with attribution, complies with WP:NPOV (state facts about opinions).
 * 2. A parent-child issue of this magnitude is relevant to each person's bio.
 * 3. Alan Keyes's take on it should be and is included, but he doesn't get a veto power over what Wikipedia says about him. No one except Daniel Brandt is accorded that privilege.
 * You really won't get very far by just repeating the same assertions over and over. JamesMLane t c 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikignat has been reported for violation of the 3RR. --Jdcaust (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the various references regarding this issue and don't see what others see:
 * I see Maya Keyes confirming the cutting of of financial support. Which is also stated in other references.
 * A lone source does claim that she was kicked out of the house but, in contrast to the statements above, these are not statements by Maya but by the article writer. Maya does talk a lot about people being kicked out but does not include herself.
 * That lone source doesn't seem very reliable giving its open bias.
 * The link to the supposed personal blog is dead so there is no way checking whether the reporting was accurate. Also, one of the sources put doubt on the identification of the blog and Maya.

Str1977 (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Iowa" :
 * "LA" :
 * "LA" :
 * "LA" :

Christain Falangist Party
Obama's wikipedia article dose not mention he is endorsed by the Communist Party USA (which has probably at least 50,000 more members than the Christian Falagnist Party), so why dose Alan Key's article make specific reference to the Christian Falangist Party's endorsement of Alan Keyes? I think it is irrelevant and remoeving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.138.137 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When making talk page comments about one's edit, it's good practice to actually make one's comment relevant to the changes made to the article. The removed sentence, "He is known for his Christian Dominionist views on the role of government and societal issues" makes no reference to a "Christian Falangist Party," thus I have restored this sentence. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dominionist?
Is it really possible to call someone a Domionist and maintain NPOV? It is not a well-defined term, and it is generally considered (according to its wiki article) to be a controversial term to use. The fact that it is (again according to its wiki article) rarely used for self-description indicates that it has subjectively negative (rather than factual) connotations. If what you mean is that he says Christians should stand up and become activists for political change that is more in tune with the minds of what he percieves (rightly or wrongly) to be the majority of Americans, you could probably find a quote for that. If what you mean is that he is well-known for favoring theocracy, I think you would need a citation for that. I haven't heard anything from him saying that he favored denying civil rights to non-Christians (which is one of the connotations of Dominionism). I don't know that he never did, but that is what citations are for. Unless someone has one, I think the sentence should either be removed or re-worded to be more factual. Sorry if this isn't the right way to make the comment; I'm new. FideliaE (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ubersite Citation
Under the Illinois Senate campaign 2004 section there is a sentence which states: "Keyes stated the view that U.S. Senators should be appointed and no longer elected by the people.[55]". The "55" is a citation to a page in Ubersite, which the link is http://www.ubersite.com/m/41646. I do not think this is a reliable reference. Should there be a better reference, or this statement taken down until there is a better reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.54.182 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That statement is not completely true. He actually said that Senators should be elected by the State legislatures as was originally done before the Constitution was amended to provide for direct election of the Senators. I'll find a reliable source and change the sentence accordingly. Thanks for pointing that out. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

need better sources
I see now this statement has the support of three sources. However, the first is the above citation to Ubersite, the second is a blog entry, and the third citation does not support the assertion (it says that Keyes would be the beneficiary of the election of U.S. Senators by state legislatures, rather than saying that he advocates this). Can Keyes' opposition to the Seventeenth Amendment be sourced either to a major news publication or to Keyes himself? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick Google News Archive search turns up plenty of hits for "Alan Keyes" "seventeenth amendment," including this one from the Chicago Tribune. I'll add it to the article momentarily. Here is the relevant paragraph, since that site requires registration:
 * "Keyes also said the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which created the direct public election of senators, was a "critical" issue of his campaign, the sources said. The Republican contender said the method spelled out until 1913 in the Constitution, in which state legislators chose U.S. senators, would bring more accountability to government."
 * While his advocacy of Seventeenth Amendment repeal may sound rather extreme, it's not all that unusual to hear it from time to time from others of Keyes' persuasion. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest External Link to Independent Review of Alan Keyes' Website
Suggest External Link to independent Review of Alan Keyes' website at http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/alan-keyes.html. May I post?Tmarkets (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No comments after about 2 weeks, so I guess there's no objection Tmarkets (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't reply right away. Unfortunately, based on WP policy this is not an appropriate site to link to. Wikipedia strongly discourages links to self-published sources in general. In the case of biographies of living people, the standard is even higher: Third party self published sources are not permitted.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Information here is supposed to be established and widely agreed upon. It is not a research journal, where experts review the latest ideas to determine whether they are likely correct or incorrect. Bhimaji (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dlabtot (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What are his politics?
From reading the article, I know he's black, and a Republican. But what are his politics? The article needs to discuss his unique brand of evangelical anti-federalism. Some choice quotes should demonstrate his proud wingnuttery, like this exchange when he was on [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1191581/posts Fresh Air]:


 * DAVIES: You were quoted as saying in the year 2000, quote, "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there." You're from Maryland, running in Illinois. Have you changed your mind, or are the standards different in your case?


 * KEYES: Oh, no, no. The standards are the same, and I have not changed my mind. And I think that what Hillary did, I would still criticize roundly, because she self-evidently shopped around America, looked carefully to pick a state that would serve her personal ambition, prepared the ground, went in in order to construct a basis for pursuing her personal ambition, and was consciously translating her national standing and reputation into a bid for a seat for power--regardless, really, of the principles of representational integrity and state sovereignty. That's not what I'm doing.


 * DAVIES: Well, you are a man of some . . . yeah. . ..


 * KEYES: I didn't have any thought whatsoever of coming here to run. It was not something that was on my personal agenda in any way. I was approached by people in Illinois, by their own decision--which is what makes it formally consistent with sovereignty. But even more important, the federalism issue that I raised is very important to me, but federalism has two components, which, as I've reminded people, are wonderfully summed up in the state motto of Illinois. It's "state sovereignty, national union." Federalism has two parts. I think we ought to respect the state sovereignty part and not sacrifice it to personal ambition--but when the principles of our national union are at stake, Lincoln, for instance, recognized in his statesmanship that you must limit your allegiance to state sovereignty in order to defend the principles of our national union. And those principles are at stake in this race because Barack Obama is deeply committed to a stance on abortion and other moral issues that rejects the founding principles of this country. And as I thought it through, I said, "Look, I have a moral obligation, after all I've said in life, to go in and defend those principles, because if I didn't, people would think I was an outrageous hypocrite."


 * DAVIES: Well, let's get to that. I mean, you made a lot of headlines in the Illinois papers early in this campaign by saying that Barack Obama had, I believe, "the slaveholder position" on life, because of his position on abortion.


 * KEYES: Absolutely.


 * DAVIES: Awfully strong words.


 * KEYES: Not so much, just logical. It's just rational. It's an argument, because the slaveholder position--as reflected in, say, the position of somebody like Stephen Douglas. He was a pro-choice candidate back [then] on slavery. He said he didn't care whether it was voted up or voted down, so long as it was done by popular sovereignty, which meant "the people's choice." And Abraham Lincoln came forward and excoriated him because of the stance of indifference to our fundamental moral principles, and Lincoln referred to the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The same indifference, exactly, is involved in the issue of abortion, the notion that somehow you can look at the life in the womb and say the mother's choice determines our respect for it, when our principles say that every human being, regardless of circumstance, development, or condition, the worth of that human life comes from the Creator--that's what the Declaration states. So, just as the slaveholder and people like Douglas were willing to disregard the worth of black Americans on the basis of their choice, so we have people like Obama today saying we can disregard the God-given worth of that babe in the womb because of our choice--and in doing so, they reject the fundamental principle that Lincoln asserted, that Martin Luther King asserted, that Frederick Douglass and others asserted, that we must respect the conscience shaped by the Declaration on which this country was founded. I believe that, and I think that it's clear that Barack Obama does not. And so, I'm not calling him names or anything, I'm just saying, "Look! The principle at stake is the same, and his position is like the position of Stephen Douglas and others who were the slaveholders' favorites in those days."

Considering that the author of the Declaration of Independence was a slaveholder, Keyes' tortured defense of his "slaveholder" attack is nonsensical.

Often people make principled declarations yet follow it up with unprincipled actions...its called hypocrisy. Just because Jefferson was a hypocrite does not invalidate the principles in the Declaration of Independence themselves. Keyes argument was not protection of Jefferson, it was protection of the principles he formulated in the the DoI. Your confusion of the two is nonsensical.


 * As far as I can tell, the above (interesting as it is) is a discussion of Mr. Keyes himself, not of the article, and should be deleted. 162.83.216.10 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Keyes calling "usurper" and a "radical communist"
So what? I don't see why this would be considered notable enough to make it into the article. If we were include every bizarre or nonsensical statement from Keyes into this article, even those reported by reliable sources, it would quickly grow to an unmanageable length. Dlabtot (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I would be in favor of seeing at least a few more of his radical comments in this article, and some mention of his current activities in the lead. As it currently stands, this article strikes me as emphasizing Keyes' respectable, part-of-the-establishment past at the expense of his fringy present; one might call this an unusual example of WP:UNDUE.  This article is GA-rated by several projects, but I'm not sure that rating continues to be deserved if the article doesn't more fully convey who he is, now, as opposed to who he was.


 * Maybe others disagree and think the current article does capture the subject fairly. But, if there's consensus to include it, here are 3 WP:BLP-compliant cites for Keyes' comments (the first one is the local TV station in the city where he said them, the latter two are (in my understanding, at least) allowed per the guideline, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."


 * http://new.khastv.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16300&storytopic=4


 * http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html


 * http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/02/another-stale-breath-of-crazy-from-alan-keyes-.html

--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, the addition smacks of recentism... do the ten year test... In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? As to the question of whether the article unduly portrays Keyes as mainstream or part of the establishment... well, for perspective, you might want to take a look at what this article used to look like. I think you'll agree there has been significant improvement. Dlabtot (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You ask a fair question; Keyes himself may not be relevant at all in ten years, but to the extent he is, I'd have to think his intemperate attacks on Obama would have to be part of the story,whether it's these particular comments or some other examples. Anyway, what do think about adjusting the lead of the article (just a bit) to capture some of his now-ness?--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just don't agree, for the reasons I've already given. His comments are not worthy of notice. Dlabtot (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the comments are not worthy of notice. Even if they were worthy of notice, they would need to be published in a reliable source other than a blog; the Huffington Post, which has no compunction about posting implausible made-up stories about conservatives without any fact-checking is not sufficiently reliable for BLP. THF (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of the Huffington Post is wrong in that it is an oversimplification and an overgeneralization. It is worth noting that the source you use, the Washington Post, is at this moment embroiled in a controversy of its own over the integrity and quality of its editorial and fact-checking process. Dlabtot (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A George Will op-ed that people have a political disagreement over is not a front-page article libeling someone. THF (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is also a misrepresentation of both controversies. Though no doubt a good faith error on your part. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in the one case, George Will wrote an op-ed that was factually correct but disputed in an another op-ed, and in the other, the Huffington Post reposted an unquestionably false video in a news story without making any effort to verify its accuracy. Still don't see the comparison, but we're way off topic now, since George Will op-eds have nothing to do with this article, and you don't challenge any facts in the WaPo article that I did cite. You can have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll take the last word. Your characterizations are false. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Borat references
Why so many footnotes for what appears to be a one sentence trivia reference to the film "Borat"? Botox for bunnies (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck through posting by sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback    talk    21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there were editors who were trying to argue that this was not notable. Anyway, a lack of references is a problem, a surfeit of references is not. Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notre Dame
Keyes was, in fact, released on $250 bond. (see AP stories)  Collect (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to find the source that says that and add it to the story, fine. But don't remove properly sourced material from the article, and especially don't use an inaccurate and misleading edit summary, as you did here: . Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in to see if there's anybody with a bona fide objection to the nugget that keeps getting removed. It looks like simple vandalism to me, but I figured I'd check in anyway. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Release noted per cite. Collect (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections here about the release being mentioned. Can you see any reason why the full paragraph would keep getting pulled besides vandalism? — Bdb484 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up unsourced sections
I cleaned up all the citation-needed tags, including solid, unbiased sources for his criticisms of Obama, being a roommate of Bill Kristol, being a member of the Catholic League board of advisors, and receiving death threats. I removed the sentence "Throughout his career, Keyes has earned respect for thought based on the concept of God-given, inalienable rights" from the "Scholar" section because I couldn't find a source and believe sourcing that may be nearly impossible. Since that section is a bit sparse, I'll try and add some more to it when I have time. Once I do that, I think I'll nominate this article for a reassessment to see if it can get above B-class. --Jdcaust 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job, but one thing that's important is to use the cite web template, rather than just put in a URL. If you use the template and fill it out completely (author, title, date, etc), then if the link is moved, we have something to google to try to find the new URL, but even if a new URL can't be found, that's not great but it's ok.  On the other hand, if it's just a dead link, with no context, there isn't really anything that can be done. -- B  10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I'm still learning many of the tricks here. I reformatted all of those citations into the citeweb form and changed one of them, citation 25, from a link to a blog, to a link to the article the blog linked to for its content.  I figure Chicago Tribune with the same information was more reliable than someone's political ticker.--Jdcaust 11:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Found another unsourced fact. In the Early Life and Family section, a passage from Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" is described that is essentially a retelling of Alan Keyes' death threat experience at Cornell.  At the end, it says this student was Keyes.  I can't find a reference for it, but I reworded it as seen and moved it up next to the "death threats" sentence.  I'll delete the whole thing if anyone considers this original research.  --Jdcaust 11:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Questionable fact. The account of Alan Keyes' death threat experience at Cornell repeats verbatim the cited source's statement regarding Vietnam war protesters who seized a campus building. I was at Cornell when Willard Straight Hall (the student union) was taken over, and I watched from Lincoln Hall when the African-American students who had seized the building marched across campus afterward. These were not per se Vietnam war protesters, though resistance to the Vietnam war was certainly part of the mix.OldExpat (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection
There was a request on RfPP for semi-protection because of problems with the image, and its misuse on other websites, which I see was discussed above. Could someone let me know whether this is a legitimate concern, in terms of BLP? I added full protection thinking this was a recent discussion, but then I saw it was from 2009, so I'm not sure how best to proceed now. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 13:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit history you will see that it is unsigned-in users causing the problems. Therefore I would say it would be best to permanently semi-protect the article. Aaaccc (talk), 16 January 2011


 * Okay, I'll do that, but I hope you'll monitor any legitimate concern about that image, per BLP. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mesora.org
The website Mesora.org is the source given for Alan Keyes supposedly receiving an award from Israel. According to this article, it also is/was leading a boycott against MSNBC for canceling Keyes' show. The website appears to be used as a source for several other articles on Wikipedia, though most of those seem to relate to Judaism. Weather it is an acceptable source for those articles, I cannot say, but I do not believe it meets WP:RS for this article. Here is the page used for the citation:. This looks extremely odd to me. Also, if Keyes was really given an award by the State of Israel, wouldn't some more mainstream news source have reported on it? Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a better or more "official" picture for Alan Keyes?
The picture used right now doesn't look very professional. In fact, there is a commonly thrown around image that uses the current picture. I will not post that picture, as it contains racist language. I think we should attempt to find a better, more "official" picture of Alan Keyes.--Minimidgy (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This photograph, according to the image source page, was released for Wikipedia use by Renew America. If you have another picture, by all means suggest it, but this one seems appropriate, especially considering that it was sent to us by a Keyes affiliated organization. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I can understand if there's concern about someone else's inappropriate use of the current photo, I think it's rather a good image, and captures Keyes's personality nicely.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you put this picture there, you should talk about the meme spawned from it, too. You guys have no idea what you got yourselves into, do you? Or rather, got him into. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment is pretty cryptic. What are you trying to say? Dlabtot (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess the meme would offend him. The meme includes a derogatory term for African-Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimidgy (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Dlabtot (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The said meme is in the shape of the very same picture with a 'subtitle' if I can say, that refers to American people to insult the users of some Internet forums, that's what. Although, since this picture has been given to Wikipedia for that illustrating purpose, there is no problem with this I guess: I refuse to think Wikipedia is going to remove every picture that receives the same treatment. ACogloc (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're all too cryptic. The picture is all over 4chan /b/ with the phrase "Y'all n***as postin' in a troll thread. Also, I am a massive newfag. Dude, seriously, I know you're not a /b/tard, but sshhh".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.252.208 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Y'all trolls postin in a n***a thread 67.180.157.223 (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article still gives the impression that Keyes is a mainstream figure in contrast to the highly controversial person that he really is. Just today on his Renew America site, he writes: "Impeachment: going from talk to action." He continues: "It's obvious that support is intensifying for the impeachment and removal of the civil officers collaborating with the Obama faction's assault on the Constitution. Since I last wrote, the Obama faction and its collaborators have begun deploying the dismissive calumnies they use to cow and demoralize citizens roused to defeat the elitist faction's effort to overthrow constitutional self-government in the United States."

By the way, Mesora.org is a minuscule operation out of Long Island - a 501(c)3. According to the last filed tax return it has annual revenues of $26,000. Strange for the only source of this award that Keyes supposedly received. David Cary Hart (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup sorely needed
I would hope someone would take the time to archive much of ancient info on this page. Leaving it serves no useful purpose.

The statement in the article that the 1996 presidential campaign was conducted to raise the issue of abortion is not supported by the source. My guess that all his campaigns have been conducted out of narcissism, to raise money for himself, personally, and to attack those with whom he disagrees, in other words, those holding a wide spectrum of political opinion. Activist (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Article is out of date
Why is there nothing in this article say nothing about Keyes after 2010? I'm sure that he has been active for the last five years. This article needs recent information about him. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130302161153/http://mail.conservativecontacts.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=c2c0bdcb6d7e4cf26689974daba50f0d&CID=8649327657&ch=8457C2B230486AED709AF895876F3A8F to http://mail.conservativecontacts.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=c2c0bdcb6d7e4cf26689974daba50f0d&CID=8649327657&ch=8457C2B230486AED709AF895876F3A8F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
 * Added tag to http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/10881/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.alankeyes.com/play.php?mp3=123
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/candidates/keyes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230144204/http://www.renewamerica.us:80/archives/media/interviews/04_08_31smiley.htm to http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_08_31smiley.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161445578
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/sacha_baron_cohen_the_real_borat_finally_speaks/page/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 one external links on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017045742/http://archive.salon.com:80/politics2000/feature/2000/01/25/keyes/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/01/25/keyes/index.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ronaldreaganarchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=20524780_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=25&currentPage=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822021752/http://www.renewamerica.us:80/archives/media/interviews/04_08_31siriusq.htm to http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_08_31siriusq.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928031522/http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/play.php?mp3=64 to http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/play.php?mp3=64
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011161918/http://www.renewamerica.us:80/news/070914keyes.htm to http://www.renewamerica.us/news/070914keyes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215002859/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-debate_webdec13,1,4144072.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-debate_webdec13,1,4144072.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419141036/http://www.beaumontenterprise.com:80/site/news.cfm?newsid=19275409&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6 to http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19275409&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6
 * Added tag to http://www.standardspeaker.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7229&Itemid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512083840/http://www.conservativepulse.com:80/home/page/2/ to http://www.conservativepulse.com/home/page/2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705043029/http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/keyes-continuing-candidacy/ to http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/27/keyes-continuing-candidacy/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122055434/http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf to http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927120253/http://www.alankeyes.com/about/media.php to http://www.alankeyes.com/about/media.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308164825/http://www.renewamerica.us:80/show/transcripts.htm to http://www.renewamerica.us/show/transcripts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716232357/http://www.mesora.org/keyes/29.html to http://www.mesora.org/keyes/29.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611194319/http://www.renewamerica.us:80/archives/transcript.php?id=255 to http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/transcript.php?id=255
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185106/http://www.renewamerica.us/news/030826keyes.htm to http://www.renewamerica.us/news/030826keyes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715050152/http://www.renewamerica.us:80/news/050328keyes.htm to http://www.renewamerica.us/news/050328keyes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185459/http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/transcript.php?id=422 to http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/transcript.php?id=422
 * Added tag to http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090511/News01/905119921/1129/News
 * Added tag to http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090516/News01/905160320/1011/News

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_08_31siriusq.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renewamerica.us/news/070914keyes.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-debate_webdec13%2C1%2C4144072.story
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-keyes13dec13%2C1%2C5461637.story?coll=la-news-a_section
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/10881/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renewamerica.us/show/transcripts.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/transcript.php?id=255
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193057/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/specialreports/TENcommandments/ to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/specialreports/TENcommandments/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renewamerica.us/news/050328keyes.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0644%2Choberman%2C74897%2C20.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0%2C8599%2C1534437%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529113108/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/alan-keyes/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/alan-keyes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109193619/http://archives.alankeyes.com/play.php?mp3=123 to http://archives.alankeyes.com/play.php?mp3=123
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070919062524/http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/15/alan_keyes_joins_gop_08_field/4927/ to http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/15/alan_keyes_joins_gop_08_field/4927/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017010120/http://www2.indystar.com/articles/4/191586-7434-168.html to http://www2.indystar.com/articles/4/191586-7434-168.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806072827/http://www.mikefergusononline.com/ to http://www.mikefergusononline.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608214718/http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161445578 to http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161445578
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111235617/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0644%2Choberman%2C74897%2C20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0644%2Choberman%2C74897%2C20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204122620/http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/archives/2000/538/ to http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/archives/2000/538/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127014533/http://www.politics1.com/blog-0108a.htm to http://www.politics1.com/blog-0108a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Keyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208155202/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/05/640937.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/05/640937.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929020729/http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/11/17/Alan_Keyes_Doubts_Obama_s_Citizenship.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/11/17/Alan_Keyes_Doubts_Obama_s_Citizenship.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612235017/http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html to http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Old Comments

 * The claim that Keyes throwing his daughter out of the house was met with 'widespread acclaim' is unsourced and doesn't seem to have any supporting evidence. This sentence should be removed.  I will do so shortly if there is no disagreement on this point.


 * "In spite of Keyes' experience as a U.N. ambassador, he has been critical of the U.N. itself." I believe this sentence bears positive sentiments towards the U.N. In my biased opinion, I would write this like this: "Due to Keyes' experience as a U.N. ambassador, he has been critical of the U.N. itself." Can we structure this sentence so that it is neutral towards the U.N.? Perl guy 06:35, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I practically stripped and rewrote the article and added some photos with descriptive captions. --Gerald Farinas 01:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What I want to know is: Does AK live in Illinois? Salasks 02:33, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * No he doesn't live in Illinois. He lives in Maryland. The Illinois GOP, under the influence of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, was a bit desperate in getting a high profile candidate to challenge the skyrocketing poll numbers Barack Obama received after his acclaimed 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote speech. The party called Keyes on the Sunday evening before his name was leaked to the press as a possible replacement for Jack Ryan and pleaded with him to run.  Illinois law, using guidelines provided in the United States Constitution, says that anyone can run for the United States Senate from Illinois just as long as he establishes a residence by election day. --Gerald Farinas 16:32, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this a typo?
This has GOT to be a typo or an omission. Under the Media Campaign section it reads:

"The show and websites champion conservative issues and causes including opposition to abortion, affirmative action, gay rights and seeks the enslavement of African-Americans. "

Surely, he doesn't actually advocate enslavement... so how should we take this sentence?


 * It was vandalism. --Jerry

just a note, long island and new york city aren't connected, manhattan is a seperate island, so that should be changed from the intro ---d

That is an odd thing to say. Since when is NYC only Manhattan? Both Queens and Brooklyn are quite connected to Long Island (they are merely the Western most part of Long Island and happen to fall into city limits).

This article should be slowly trimmed
I would like to suggest that those who come here, or have edited this article, consider a slow and steady dimunution of the piece. Dr. Keyes becomes less notable with every passing year: his last government job was thirty years ago, and his political career - if one can call it that - seems to be over. Why exactly should anyone care what he thinks on the issues, or care about the status with his daughter? If he had never run for office would he have a page at all?Polkadreamer (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. – The Grid  ( talk )  17:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Allen Keyes presidential campagin 2008 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Allen Keyes presidential campagin 2008. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories
Two questions:
 * 1) Does Keyes belong in "Illinois politicians"?
 * 2) If/when he loses and moves back to Maryland, do we remove him?

Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:06, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)


 * As long as he's an Illinois resident with an Illinois address and runs in an Illinois political race, which he is, he is an "Illinois politician." Because this will be one of those prominent historical races in Illinois that will be remembered for a long time (first U.S. Senate race between two Black men), I think his name should be kept on the Illinois politicians category even if he loses and moves back to Maryland.  --Gerald Farinas 16:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AOTW de-listing
I listed this article as a candidate for article of the week, but it didn't really fit the criteria there, and it was moved to Peer review. Either way, my hope was to get more people involved in editing it. In light of the (somewhat questionable) decision to make Barack Obama a featured article, I thought we should make every effort to improve this article so that it, too, can be featured. I want to make clear that I have nothing against the work of the people who've brought the article to its current state. JamesMLane 22:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caps in headings
The addition of "U.S." before "Senate" in the headings seems OK to me, but it seems to have been accomplished by a revert-then-edit. (I had corrected "ahd" to "had". My edit summaries don't always describe every such change.)  I've now restored that correction, and fixed caps in headings: "Senate" should be capitalized, but not "summit". JamesMLane 01:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems redundant to me, given that the intro establishes the context as a U.S. politician. It would read oddly to me if, for example, the article on Jacques Chirac kept making reference to his races for "Prime Minister of France" rather than simply saying "Prime Minister" after the context was established. --Delirium 08:49, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not redundant because there are more than 50 legislative houses called "senate" in the United States. "U.S. Senate" makes it clear. Acsenray 15:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't daughters count as children?
At the bottom of this page, there's a photo of the Keyes family, with the caption, "Keyes is married to Jocelyn Marcel Keyes; they have two children, Francis and Andrew, and one daughter, Maya." This is awfully weird wording. Shouldn't it be, "two sons, Francis and Andrew, and one daughter, Maya"? I mean, daughters and sons are both types of children, yes?


 * Yep. I edited it. -- Curps 22:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christianity not religion
The original article stated "A devout Roman Catholic, Keyes does not believe in the separation of church and state and favors a view that the founding fathers of the United States intended the laws of the country to be based on principles of religion."

This is incorrect. Keyes believes the 'founding fathers' intended the laws to be based on the principles of Christianity not religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.141.76 (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily disputing this, but you need a source for that change. Khanartist  08:26, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)