Talk:Emanuel Cleaver

Mayor
The article states that Mr. Cleaver was elected "Mayor of Kansas." That title makes no sense. Would someone with sources please correct to "Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri"? 165.91.13.196 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I'm a bit surprised that there isn't a section on this bio addressing a few controversies over the years that have followed Mr Cleaver. Specifically, small things like his purchase of Charlie Parker's plastic sax (I don't remember the amount spent, but many considered it excessive), and his calling light rail "touristy frou-frou" (which I suspect his opinion has been revising over the years). These are large items in Kansas City political lore that have reverberations today. I'm not volunteering, but it seems like it would be helpful to mention these things in a neutral tone as usual, because I suspect that Mr Cleaver will be gaining additional public attention in the coming years, as being Kansas City's first African-American (former) mayor during the time of our first African-American president. Subversionarts (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Emanuel Cleaver
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Emanuel Cleaver's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "votesmart": From Mike Thompson (California politician):  From Carlos Curbelo (politician):  From Hakeem Jeffries:  From Karen Bass:  From Jim Himes:  From Scott Perry (politician):  From Peter DeFazio: DeFazio's profile from Project Vote Smart From Bill Shuster: Project Vote Smart</li> <li>From Chris Collins (U.S. politician): </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Emanuel Cleaver. 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/20120604022805/http://jacksoncountydemocraticcommittee.org/elected-officials/emanuel-cleaver/ to http://jacksoncountydemocraticcommittee.org/elected-officials/emanuel-cleaver/
 * Added tag to http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/kraske-cleaver-wants-charges-against-waters-rangel-dropped/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030506/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9TVG6EG3.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9TVG6EG3.htm

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) 10:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emanuel Cleaver. 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/20070822192321/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2953 to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2953

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) 13:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emanuel Cleaver. 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/20120408022358/http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/06/3540958/taxpayers-could-have-to-cover.html to http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/06/3540958/taxpayers-could-have-to-cover.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) 02:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Amen and Awomen
This matter is being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard; Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Please contribute there in the first instance. Arcturus (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This material has been challenged by multiple editors and must stay out unless a consensus develops for inclusion. As I noted in my edit summary, this seems entirely trivial to me. Other users have expressed the same view. This is not only a BLP matter, but also a question of simple lack of weight. The material added, for example, was longer than the text devoted to his two terms as mayor of a major city. Neutralitytalk 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You do like edit warring, don't you. Arcturus (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

How on earth can this be undue? Whatever this man is known for in the US, in the rest of the world he is known for one thing only; the ridiculous remark he made a couple of days ago. He's now rowed back, claiming it was a joke. Well fine, we should put that in as well. So we have the fact, and his counterclaim. His remarks are anything but trivial. They are extremely controversial and should be documented here, properly referenced. Arcturus (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is unlikely to have any WP:LASTING impact. It was something for Ben Shapiro to rage over for one of his shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is undue. It's a dad joke of no significance that has been turned into a culture war faux controversy by right-wing outlets. Per linguist John McWhorter, it's a "long-lived Southern/black preacher signature." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Include the material:


 * Support, per reasons above. Arcturus (talk)

I would be opposed to including this if all we have for sources is opinion pieces. If it ever gets covered by a non-opinion reliable source then I might consider including it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many. Here's one . It's a UK-based newspaper, but it came to the top of my Google list. Here's a US one,, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a RS. It looks like it does. Arcturus (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not include it just based on that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, the addition of amen & awoman being added due to the fact that this made national news and was highly covered by all people and organizations. This is NOT a political issue and it does not matter if he says it was a joke. It was said in the chambers and was the opening prayer of the 117th Congress. Grahaml35 (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Amen & Awomen is being added after being discussed on this talk page as well as the biography of living persons notice board. The text on the page is not opinionated and only states the facts of what happened. Additionally, none of the sources listed are opinionated which was the main concern amongst the talk page and notice board. The user Neutrality also stated that “the burden to obtain consensus is on the proponents of challenged new additions, particularly for things like this.” Ample time has been given for all users to chime in and the consensus was that all sources cannot be opinionated. The rest of the concerns on the pages were politically charged. Grahaml35 (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As can be partially evidenced here by the fact that nobody other than you has commented on this since the day the thread started, it should be clear that this was a WP:RECENTISM bias. There is no WP:LASTING coverage of it, no new news articles about it in a month. Therefore, WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not start this thread or the other one. Additionally this would qualify in the lasting effect as there has been coverage of it. Here are two different links to pages one written within the last week and the other less than two weeks old. This sources are opinion pieces, but it shows that it still be coverage which is contrary to your reason for undoing.   Additonally, this is not WP:RECENTISM bias as it has been nearly a month since the amen and awomen event and this has been my first edit to the page. I could argue that Cleaver's loan default or office attack sections could be removed for WP:RECENTISM as well as articles have not been written on those for quite some time. When typing in "Emanuel Cleaver" in Google the first thing that comes up after is "prayer" another sign that it is not WP:RECENTISM As I have not violated any policies and your accusations have been proven false I am reverting the edit.Grahaml35 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , do not reinsert contested material just because you feel like it. There is no consensus to include this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, do not remove contested material just because you feel like it. There is no consensus to remove this. Additionally, the remarks you made disqualifying the content was proven false.Grahaml35 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu Additionally, how I find interesting that it was removed for WP:RECENTISM & WP:LASTING but after that was proven completely false it is now being removed because of no "consensus". Grahaml35 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is a BLP. Contested material stays off until a WP:CONSENSUS is established to include it, not the other way around. There is no consensus for inclusion here. Nor was there when this issue was discussed at WP:BLPN. It was removed for RECENTISM and LASTING because it was added via RECENTISM and there is no LASTING impact. I have looked and see no new articles about this, because it's over and has no lasting impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu I listed multiple links that show this has had a LASTING impact. I will post the links again here. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two op-eds do not demonstrate LASTING impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said they did. You claimed "I have looked and see no new articles about this, because it's over and has no lasting impact." I posted you two articles disproving that. Here is another article about the topic of " amen & awomen" 9 to 10 days after the event. More proof that this was not a 24 hour event.   Grahaml35 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been searching at Donald Trump for mentions of "covfefe" and at JFK for "jelly donut" but so far have come up empty. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Needs to be included. Wikipedia is so biased 47.200.110.84 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC about Amen & Awomen
<div class="boilerplate vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * The result of the discussion was no consensus for inclusion at this time. There seems to be an intractable disparity between those who maintain this addition to be noteworthy versus those who argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies. Not sure there's much to expand on this beyond the assessment of there not being even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for inclusion, even following multiple additional sources having been provided in the course of this discussion. To sum up, the discussion is at an impasse, where neither side's position is considerably better represented, so the outcome defaults against inclusion. El_C 16:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * RfC relisted. Okay,, how did I mess this up this time? El_C 15:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Should the Rev Cleaver ending his prayer in Congress with "amen & awomen" be added according to Wikipedia's three content policies, neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research policies? Grahaml35 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose This looks like something that won't be notable in 10 years (10YEARTEST).  If it continues to come up after the initial news burst is over or if it can be shown that reactions to this comment have impacted his work then we can discuss it then.  Currently this looks like a sound bite being put into the article without an justification as to why it's important beyond, "well the media said it happened".  Springee (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's relevant and well sourced. Reporting the facts of the matter don't contravene NPOV. Arcturus (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:V: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It's verifiable that Cleaver closed a prayer by saying "amen and awoman", and that right wing commentators tried to make it into an outrage, but there's no WP:LASTING impact. The news story didn't last 10 days, let alone 10 years. It's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a dad joke of no significance that was turned into a short-lived culture war faux controversy by right-wing outlets. The claim that Cleaver is "misconstruing" something is a BLP violation. Per linguist John McWhorter, it's a "long-lived Southern/black preacher signature" to add "awoman" to "amen". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the linguist's take could be included in the relevant section. The fact that an expert provides background to what Cleaver did does not detract in the slightest from the tremendous amount of notoriety the incident achieved around the globe. Whether we're dealing with a "dad joke" is not for us to say; that interpretation is equally irrelevant. As to the use of political/ideological viewpoints as arguments, that simply has no place here. -The Gnome (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Trivia. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Whether Cleaver meant that as a "kind of witticism", per John McWhorter, or he was serious is irrelevant. The utterance drew extensive media coverage. That is all that is needed in order to include it in the article and all that should be included in it. Accordingly, there is no question of a neutral point of view violation. The fact that Cleaver's closing of a prayer drew extensive coverage and commentary in all media (which puts to rest any claim that this was something trivial) suffices for inclusion and we do not need to be looking for "lasting fame" nor being in fear of "right wing propaganda." We're here to provide information; not opinion. -The Gnome (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless a supporter can show me multiple RS to show notability. ~ HAL  333  23:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per below. ~ HAL  333  12:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, HAL333. Here's a quick sample:
 * •USA: CBS "'Amen and awoman': Congressman receives backlash over prayer"; Associated Press "Missouri congressman defends ‘A-woman’ end to prayer"; USA Today "'Amen and a-women:' Inane political correctness proves how little Democrats get faith"; Kansas City Star "Missouri Rep. Cleaver says his ‘A-woman’ prayer is misconstrued to stoke division".
 * •Italy: La Repubblica "'Amen e Awoman', il pastore dem chiude così la preghiera durante il Congresso"; Quotidiano Nazionale "'Amen e awoman', la preghiera del deputato scatena una polemica. Ma lui: 'Era un omaggio'"; Nuovo Giornale Nazionale "Amen Awomen, poveri noi"; Notizie "Deputato conclude preghiera con 'amen and awomen': polemiche negli USA"; Osservatore Repubblicano "Amen e 'Awomen': quando il politicamente corretto va di male in peggio".
 * •France: Huffington Post "Le 'amen' inclusif de cet élu démocrate n'a pas plu aux républicains"; MSN "Il finit sa prière par 'amen… and awomen'".
 * •Greece: Proto Thema "Dem. congressman serving as guest House chaplain ends first congressional prayer with 'amen & awoman'"; Vradyni "Δημοκρατικός γερουσιαστής-πάστορας, πρόσθεσε και το Awoman μετά το Amen!"; Cephalonia News "Για γέλια και για κλάματα: Γερουσιαστής πρόσθεσε και το Awoman μετά το Amen!"; Press World "Δημοκρατικός γερουσιαστής-πάστορας, πρόσθεσε και το Awoman μετά το Amen".
 * •Spain: El Pais "Amén y a women"; Telecinco "Amén y Awoman: el rezo 'inclusivo' en la sesión inaugural del Congreso de Estados Unidos"; El Español "Amén y 'a-woman': la polémica oración de un demócrata a favor del lenguaje inclusivo".
 * •Russia: Izvestia "В конгрессе США произошел скандал из-за женской формы слова 'аминь'"; Sputnik "Произнося молитву в конгрессе США, чтец дополнил слово "аминь" (amen) придуманным словом 'a-women'"; RT "‘This can’t be real’: Democratic rep & pastor stirs up storm after he ends opening prayer in US House with ‘amen and AWOMAN’".
 * •Canada: Global News "‘Amen and Awomen’: U.S. Congressman mocked for gendered prayer finale".
 * •Britain: The Independent "Democrat lawmaker’s gender inclusive ‘amen and awoman’ congressional prayer causes stir"; The Guardian "US congressman who said 'amen and a-woman' prayer hits back at critics".
 * •Israel: Israel National News "US House invocation ends with 'Amen and Awomen'".
 * •Germany: Katholische Nachrichten "'A-women' als Gebetsschluss: US-Abgeordneter fühlt sich missverstanden"; Wall Street News "'Amen' und 'Awoman' – US-Democrat Cleaver beendet Eröffnungsgebet für neuen Kongress".
 * There are more, of course. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support There has been disputes that it does not have a lasting effect and is a case of recentism. All sources being used in the prospective addition are not opinionated and only state the facts of what happened. The addition I originally wrote also mentions Cleaver's rebuttal to the critics. This addition would qualify as having mass impact by all media outlets including left leaning ones like TheGuardian.com. It has been covered in the USA as well as international.  HAL333, I believe the depth of coverage as well as international coverage shows its notability. Additionally, here are two different links to pages both written written within the last 10-11 days contrary to what has been said earlier about this being a "48 hour event".   It has a WP:LASTING effect as one link I posted was written 24 days after the event. I could argue that Cleaver's loan default or office attack sections could be removed for WP:RECENTISM as well as articles have not been written on those for quite some time and did not have a lasting impact. In fact, I couldnt find anything on about either of those events by searches. When typing in "Emanuel Cleaver" in Google the first thing that comes up after is "prayer" another sign that it is not WP:RECENTISM. It does not matter if it was a joke as it was said in the chambers of congress. In my addition of "amen and awomen" I mentioned that Rev Cleaver stated that it was a pun. This is not a political issue.
 * Above comment added by Grahaml35. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Plainly trivial dad joke and no biographical significance. Neutralitytalk 15:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Neutrality. The term "dad joke" cannot be found in any of the numerous reports about the incident. A cursory examination of online sources, among which are those I cited above, shows that the term "dad joke" can practically only be found in message boards as in reddit here or in this one, chat rooms like here, and the like; i.e. in non-acceptable sources. So, calling what happened "a dad joke" is no more than a personal assessment, unsupported by evidence.
 * As to the incident not having "biographical significance", an online search can again provide solid proof that it has had and continues to be quite significant for the Congressman, since he has started a public dialogue on the issue (e.g. here), while people all over the globe are reading about it (check out the sample of sources cited above, shopped from many countries). Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that sources exist doesn't guarantee inclusion. We are an encyclopedia. "Started a public dialogue" on the "the issue"? There simply isn't any "issue" and your "started a public dialogue" is ... one column in the local newspaper from January 4? Give me a break. Neutralitytalk 19:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, let's take this through your own arguments. Why would you claim that an event that has verifiably made Cleaver known all over the world has "no biographical significance"? -The Gnome (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I question that the event has verifiably made Cleaver known all over the world. International publications ran the story, almost a month ago, and surely everyone (aside from a few editors on this site, apparently) have moved on and forgotten by now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, what evidence is there that it is only "a few editors" that seem to care? Grahaml35 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the press doesn't care, or else there would be non-opinion articles written on it since January 6. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, it cannot reasonably be disputed that Cleaver has become known in the USA as well as in numerous countries around the world. Not since we have solid evidence he has; a sample of sources testifying to that was already provided above. Your other argument, that the media "have moved on," is better. But notability need not be based on daily and everlasting fame! For example, we don't have nowadays "non-opinion articles written" about members of the Reagan administration; yet we rightfully have articles on them in Wikipedia. Notability does not degrade over time! Notability is a measure of the topic's impact, particularly with biographic articles.
 * All we've seen so far from editors who oppose inclusion are personal, unsupported judgement calls e.g. "it was a dad joke," etc. But notability is not a matter of opinion. Wikipedia is not a conglomeration of personal viewpoints but an encyclopaedia based on the content of third-party sources. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I dispute that he is "known" for saying "amen and awoman". He's either known for being a member of Congress or he's not known. You haven't provided evidence of anything other than a spike of news coverage that ended as quickly as it began, WP:RECENTISM is the reason we have WP:NOTNEWS. I can turn that essay WP:NMO back on you. It's your opinion this is WP:LASTING, but you've presented nothing that suggests that it is. Agreed that notability doesn't WP:DEGRADE: this episode never had it to begin with. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seriously "dispute that he is 'known' for saying 'amen and awomen' "? You have dozens upon dozens of reports all over the world about what Cleaver did, all specifically being about him saying awomen! And you dispute that he is known for that?!? I find it difficult to continue the dialogue with you on this issue, Muboshgu. Your assertion that Cleaver is either unknown or known for being a member of Congress is quite sad, honestly, because it flies in the face of all (easily) available evidence to the contrary. I don't know how to address such stubborn denial of extant, clear-cut, sourced text.
 * And, by the way, I directed your attention to WP:DEGRADE; not WP:LASTING. To re-iterate the relevant text: Just as a bell once struck cannot be unrung, if a subject receives significant treatment in, for example, ten reliable sources published during one year, but is never again mentioned in any compliant source, it will always have those ten published sources upon which its notability is rooted; sources do not go away. Thus, notability cannot decrease, or degrade, over time. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that hard. I don't dispute that there was news coverage in the few days after he said it, but I do dispute that there's significance from it that merits taking up space in the article for what is essentially "Cleaver said something that Republicans condemned, and nothing else happened after". WP:DEGRADE isn't relevant because this wasn't noteworthy enough to include on January 6, and it looks far less worthy to include as we approach February 6. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be very easy for you to stand here and make the astounding claim that what Cleaver did "wasn't noteworthy enough to include on [some date]" when sources have been presented, and not just from the United States alone, that testify to top notewortiness. A domestic politician gets rivers of electronic ink across the globe but somehow, magically, the whole thing has not been noteworthy. To me, this is just sad. -The Gnome (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it's sad that we're having to go around in circles about such an irrelevant event and the attempts to score political points off of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The party that is "going in circles" here is the party that supports their position by assertions and without evidence. And my input here is motivated strictly by the intention to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Nothing "political"! Kindly please assume good faith from your fellow editors.  -The Gnome (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I worded that poorly, I meant the right wing commentators who are trying to score political points, not Wikipedia editors. I'm saddened by you and other editors trying to include such an irrelevant episode in this bio. I don't see any evidence that this isn't irrelevant, no new news articles in a month, against policy of RECENTISM, UNDUE, NOTNEWS, etc... That's how we're going in circles. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per relevant sources presented above. Idealigic (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per sources presented above. Andromadist (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I was going to vote oppose because I don't see a lot of biographical significance, however, given the fact it has received a good deal of international coverage, and since I'm still seeing it being referenced in the news articles today, it probably does have a lasting impact. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I get the idea here, but these two mentions seem passing. One is about an ordinance in North Myrtle Beach and gender inclusion, and the other.... I dunno what that Chicago Tribune piece is trying to convey. What is a "Golden Moutza"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a tongue-in-cheek award for bad or stupid behavior. The name probably derives from that Greek custom. -The Gnome (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hence the "weak" support. If the quote-on-quote controversy can escape the 24-hour news cycle by over a month (even through passing mentions) then I think It warrants a mention in the article. But, as I said, I personally don't see the significance of his statement. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I'd personally agree with your take, Dr. Swag Lord, about the "significance" of the statement and the subsequent ruckus. God knows, there are many BLPs in Wikipedia on persons whose "significance" I just cannot fathom! But we go by sources here and the plethora of sources extant across the globe, per above, indicates that the world at large has determined that this information is significant. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Continuous and uninterrupted confirmation of notability is expressly not required by Wikipedia (see WP:DEGRADE) but a contributor claimed above that what Cleaver did became subsequently "not noteworthy." This is not true. We have conservative media (on Jan. 9th, on Jan. 19th, on Jan. 8th, etc), as well as liberal online sources (on Jan. 8th, on Jan. 6th, on Feb. 4th, etc) still debating and opining on the issue. This is hardly a blink. There is clearly evidence of concretely supported notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Armstrong Williams and John Kass op-eds are "liberal online sources"? Those are conservatives, first of all, and in any case, they are op-ed columns, not news sources. In fact, every single one of the sources you linked is either an op-ed or a blog (some quite random/obscure, like a "conservativewoman.co.uk" piece or a Norman Finkelstein blog post). The sole exception is the Yeshiva World piece that you claim is from Jan. 8 &mdash; actually a reprint from the Associated Press on Jan. 5, the day after the event. We are not a newspaper. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In so many words, your at least accept that there has been continuous coverage in the media about Cleaver's actions and that the arbitrary deadline set by Muboshgu ("January 6th") is dead in the water. I won't get sidetracked about the political views of those who continue the debate; the important part is that the debate has continued. As to the latest invocation in favor of excluding this clearly notable information, please understand that the text passes WP:NOTNEWS: It's not original reporting; its nothing like routine news reporting of "announcements, sports, or celebrities"; and it's not gossip. Plus, the news coverage provenly went beyond the context of the event, going onto partisan politics, religion, etiquette, linguistics, and so on. That's all four criteria met. -The Gnome (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there hasn't been "continuous coverage in the media" or a continued "debate." This was a minor story that received no enduring coverage and has no biographical significance. The fact that you are invoking obscure blogs, opinion columns, and websites demonstrates the point. Neutralitytalk 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Norman Finkelstein is as far from "obscure" as a historian can get. His blog, therefore, can hardly be called "obscure". As to "opinion columns," well, you disputed whether there was follow-up commentary and dialogue on what Cleaver did and that is what I presented in refutation. But, apparently, you do not approve of opinions expressed in "opinion columns". Fair enough. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutrality has it exactly right. I'm not setting an "arbitrary deadline", I'm pointing out that Cleaver said "amen and awoman" on January 3, there was right wing outrage (IMHO faux outrage) on January 4, Cleaver responded on January 5, and coverage died after January 6. For the past month, there has been a lack of "continuous coverage in the media" or a continued "debate." There have been a couple of poorly written op-eds by conservatives like Armstrong Williams and John Kass. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The only party that has brought politics into the discussion as an argument ("this is done by right-wngers," etc) is the party opposed to including the information. The same party that ignores the plethora of hard, solid sourcing from around the world about this noteworthy and notable issue. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, I am shocked that this is still being called a "right wing outrage". It has been covered by numerous left leaning sources as well as international outlets that have nothing to do with the Republican party. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is that shocking? There are no left wing sources covering it. Up above you called op-eds by Armstrong Williams and John Kass "liberal" even though they are clearly not. As I said, it was covered as a legit story until the story ended with Cleaver's refutation. From there, nothing but right wing pundits to whom we should not be giving any WP:WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are falsely attribyting this to Grahaml35. But that's not important. I pointed out that your January 6th was an arbitrary deadline, since the "story" did not end on that date. Now that it was irrefutably demonstrated that talk about it continued (altough, per WP:DEGRADE, it need not), you change tack and assign political bias to anyone who continues to talk about it. This it truly extraordinary. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu - "right wing pundits to whom we should not be giving any WP:WEIGHT". A right wing pundit should never be given any WP:WEIGHT? Even if that is what was happening in this discussion (which it is completely not) that is a dangerous precedent. If a right wing pundit is simply reporting facts why should he/she not be a credible source? No sources even used in the original addition were even close to being "right leaning" or else I would not have used them. Additionally, TheGuardian.com covered the story which many consider to be left leaning. Also many international outlets covered it in four different continents. They are not all "right wing outlets" actually very few of them are. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian didn't cover the incident itself, it covered the Conservative reaction to it - which it largely looked upon as ludicrous and - in some cases ill-informed, 'correcting' an ordained Christian minister, while apparently not knowing the etymological herstory of 'Amen'. Imagining that any practicising Christian minister thinks that 'Amen' is gendered is quite priceless! Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian reported (I) what Cleaver did, i.e. "A Democratic congressman...ended an opening prayer on the first day of the new Congress by saying 'amen and a-woman'", (II) the reaction from conservative parties, i.e. "conservatives...accused him of misunderstanding the meaning of 'amen' – a Hebrew word that means 'so be it'", "Trump Jr made the same mistake [etc]", and (III) Cleaver's own reaction to the conservative reaction. As to whether The Guardian considered the incident as "ludicrous", that is your own interpretation of the report (the word does not appear anywhere); by linking the section abt the incident to The Guardian piece, the Wikipedia reader will make up their own minds about it. We're not here to stop or derail well sourced, blatantly notable information arguing (sarcastically) that the information contains "priceless" claims. That is not for us to say. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Newspapers reported what Cleaver said but we are WP:NOTNEWS. It is absolutely up to us to decide what goes into Wikipedia and what doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You will have to do better than that. Wikipedia editors do not operate on whims. What Cleaver did was reported around the globe. The ball's in your court to prove what he did was not notable. In fact, it has been ever since you argued against its inclusion in the article but, so far, all we have are assertions, irrelevancies, and arbitrary labels, e.g. "dad joke". The effort is extraordinary but the substance extremely weak. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. To help out with the WP:NOTNEWS erroneous invocation: Some years ago the King of Spain said "shut up" to Bolivian president Chavez. That was all. Yet, what he did was reported widely and it now rightfully merits not just inclusion in the respective biographies but a separate Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support the comment drew quite a lot of coverage and attention. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose flash-in-the pan coverage of a self-evident jokey remark. If covered at all, it should be covered briefly as the wholly bonkers over-reactive response to the incident. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The incident was covered in mainstream and other media around the world; thus we have indisputable proof of notability, if not notoriety. A sampling of citations from major countries was provided above. And unless we reserve ultimate judgement for ourselves, which we should not, we cannot seriously claim that the world's media has gone "bonkers" and "over-reacted!" Whatever political capital some people may have tried to make of that event should be of no concern at all to editors. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trivial joke that won't hold any relevanceSea Ane (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been a blatantly notable act by Cleaver, as the evidence shows (see samples above), and it is not up to editors to predict future outcomes, as the relevant policy instructions explicitly state. -The Gnome (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This RfC has run its course, there's no need to continue to WP:BLUDGEON the process. I'll request someone to close it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC has shown that there is more support to add it rather than the opposition. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , consensus is not formed by a mere vote count, but by an evaluation of the merits or lack thereof of the arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, but that MUST be given by an involved editor when the conversation is ongoing and NOT a bot. Additionally, Muboshgu, a WP:CLOSE is supposed to be given when closing a RfC. I do not recommend having a bot come in a remove the tag as it does not line up with Wiki's rules. The point of a RfC is to reach WP:NHC.

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC struck off or closure-reverted?
The above RfC about "Amen/Awomen" was closed by a non-admin editor who subsequently reverted ("vacated") their decision. Yet, the RfC has not been re-opened. Should the closer's revert mean that the RfC is nullified entirely, as if it never existed? And why? Isn't the appropriate course for the RfC to be re-opened and for a non-involved administrator to close it?-The Gnome (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done this (re-listing, not re-closing ). El_C 15:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've re-closed this request, after all, as no consensus. El_C 16:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I adamantly against another person coming and overturning a RfC closure. That is an awful practice. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard — there was a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, with consensus to overturn. Also, the WP:NAC was voluntarily vacated by the closer. Not sure whether this is about you not getting the result you wanted (?), but your view of the record is quite off. El_C 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unaware there was even a challenge. Additionally, in the challenge, User:Neutrality states incorrect information. This is not about the result, but it is a bad precedent to have something finalized and then just have a user involved challenge it and have it overturned. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "precedent." It's routine. Anyway, this article talk page isn't the venue to address all of that. The place to do so would be at WT:CON. El_C 22:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)