Talk:Jason Lewis (Minnesota politician)

Non-notable
This article on this person has already been removed at least once for being deemed non-notable. Has there been any particular achievement of recent note to cause this determination to be worthy of a re-vote? -Gych (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Jason Lewis (radio host)

Yes. It was agreed upon last time that the fact the he has sat in for Rush Limbaugh several times (which are refenced to the Rush Limbaugh site 3 times over) reaching a national audiience was enough to establish notability. Besides that, he is the host of a popular talk show in a market of over 3 million people. Other local talk show hosts such as Tom Barnard have articles here. Also, the refenced fact of being listed in Talker's magazine's list of the Heavy Hundred should prove notability. This article does not include several of the uncited facts that the previous one did. What is the argument for deleting this article? I agree the previous article had it's problems. -Brougham96 (talk)
 * The agreed upon decision last time was to remove the article, thus the reason you had to re-create it this time. It was known that Jason Lewis was a local radio host and that he has at times substituded for Rush Limbaugh.  The vote however was to remove the article based on lack of national or global notability.  Unless something has changed in Mr. Lewis' record since mid-July, the article should be re-tagged for deletion, if not straight out deleted.  I'm aware you may be a fan, but the notability was decided by a group of our Wikipedia peers and should stand.  This is not a personal decision for either you or me, so please do not take offense.  Note that the article for Tom Barnard is also very likely to face the same fate because he lacks wide-spread notability, so should not be used as a guide. I'll await your further thoughts before marking for deletion. -Gych (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, judging by the deletion discussion page, the issue with the previous article was references, rather than notability. -Brougham96 (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. We'll have to let others weigh in as we're obviously at a 50:50. -Gych (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Input would be appreciated. -Brougham96 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Admittedly I'm an inclusionist, but I think he scrapes by as notable. A google news search turns up quite a few short things and the Talker's 100 thing is enough IMO.  If in doubt, send it to AfD.  But I think it will make it there (and it certainly _should_ IMO). Hobit (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Affiliate lists
I suggest the afilliate list be deleted. It violates the spirit of not conducting business via Wikipedia, and affiliate lists are impossible to keep accurate, even for the syndicator. It's not useful information. 69.37.38.104 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Lewis statements
Editor Champaign Supernova deleted this text with the edit summary: "it's WP:UNDUE to have a block quote here and comes across as making this article an WP:ATTACK)".

Most of the following has been deleted:
 * During the campaign, a number of Lewis's opinions from his radio and internet career have been publicized by the news media. According to Roll Call, Lewis has "a history of controversial comments about women and slavery" and has criticized "young single women" for being "non-thinking", "single-issue voters" supporting abortion and gay marriage. Other notable views of Lewis include those in his 2011 book Power Divided is Power Checked where he "cast doubt" on the need to fight the Civil War -- stating that Abraham Lincoln “exploited the issue” of Slavery to justify the “War Between the States,”  and called for a constitutional amendment allowing “any state to peaceably leave the union.”  According to the Star Tribune'' newspaper, in 2012, Lewis stated that
 * "the 'white population' has been 'committing political suicide' and 'committing cultural suicide' by not reproducing at higher levels. Last year [2015], Lewis said 'the median income for blacks in America would make them rich in most African nations, not most - all.'" 

Replaced by


 * During the campaign, a number of Lewis's opinions from his radio and internet career have been publicized by the news media, including comments he has made about women and slavery. 

... which doesn't say what those opinions and comment about women and slavery are!

Lewis's past comments are central to the campaign. see Google videos search: "interview with candidate jason lewis television" here, including this interview. His past comment have been talked about by the Atlantic and the local metro  newspaper.

I understand the quotes are controversial and coming from unsympathetic sources, but allowing them in the article is not an "attack" on Lewis. It is stating what he said in a NPOV manner. I'm sure many viewers (well some anyway) will agree with Lewis. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting a discussion. I attempted to summarize the major points using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE rather than including numerous direct quotations from the candidate. In the summary I made, perhaps we should add "controversial" or some other adjective to give more information on the types of quotes. I think the inclusion of direct quotes can present WP:UNDUE issues and can be prone to WP:CHERRYPICKING. Perhaps Wikiquote would be a better place to collect his quotes. Also, information about Lewis's radio career should go in that section of the article, rather than the election section. I moved information about Lewis's book to another area in the article that already covered that same book. In general I just thought things were getting overly detailed and was attempting to summarize and hit on the major points in an encyclopedic way. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A few points: First, I think Lewis' statements do meet general notability by RS as described. He has been compared to Donald Trump by several RS, and readers are going to want to know why. I don't know if a sentence-long generic statement will do that. Next, it appears that the block quote in question barely met the length parameters under WP:BLOCKQUOTE and perhaps more crucially incorporates quotation marks in a way that encloses the quote (similar the preceding deleted paragraph, and somewhat defeating the purpose of using a blockquote in the first place). Also, writing the "white population" has been "committing political suicide" looks very much like taking his words out of context. We need the whole statement - and if we flesh out all of these statements into a blockquote-worthy length, it will read better and be more encyclopedic, but will at that point consume enough of the article space so Champaign Supernova's WP:ATTACKPAGE arguments become valid. TBH BoogaLouie, if all the deleted content had simply been a single paragraph w/o the blockquote it probably would have been fine. Perhaps we can compromise by going with Champaign's version, add the word "controversial" as they suggested, then follow that up with his quote about women (or whichever one has the most mentions in RS)? (Looking over it again, though, doing that might come rather close to plagiarizing the Roll Call source.) Well, that's my 5 cents. In a few weeks, if/when these statements end up in campaign ads we might have to readdress the issue anyway. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Champaign Supernova, I fully agree with putting stuff about his book in that one section, and keeping the quote from it there takes some of the steam out of the need to load up the campaign section with quotes. (Off topic: does War Between the States need quotation marks? I know it's mostly a Southern name for it, but probably falls under WP:COMMONNAME as far as I'm concerned. Or perhaps it identifies him as somewhat sympathetic to the Confederacy? I don't know. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Placed a short quote that appeared in the Star Tribune and Nation magazine. The context of the quoted appears in the Star Tribune blog:
 * ''In his criticism of the court's ruling which legalized same-sex marriage, Lewis questions the federal government's role in defining marriage and also in outlawing slavery:
 * ''In fact, if you really want to be quite frank about it, how does somebody else owning a slave affect me? It doesn’t. If I don’t think it is right, I won’t own one, and people always say ‘well if you don’t want to marry somebody of the same sex, you don’t have to, but why tell somebody else they can’t. Uh, you know if you don’t want to own a slave, don’t. But don’t tell other people they can’t.
 * ''Lewis later said "social decisions" should be left "to the collective wisdom of the states and the people. Because the courts are not smart enough to know what the answer is."
 * BoogaLouie (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * BoogaLouie (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Star-Tribune source you added does not corroborate any of the recently added material. It is about a GOP official criticizing Lewis (it's also a blog post, FWIW). In general, I'm confused as to why you would post significant context on the talk page, but then cherry-pick the most inflammatory portion of a quote and put it in the article devoid of context. This thread is suggesting we move away from doing that and towards summarizing the issues. Lewis made many comments during his radio career, but we can't list them all in this article, and there's no objective way to decide which ones we would list if we didn't list all of them. Instead, we could go back to my original suggestion, which User:Alt lys er svunnet hen seemed to agree with--a sentence that says something like "During his radio career, Lewis made controversial statements about women, slavery, etc." Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Rather than reverting and risking an edit war, please discuss these content changes here first. As I said above, the Star-Tribune source you cite doesn't even mention the quote you've added to the article. You also haven't explained why you chose only a portion of this quote and added it out of context to the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the issues with this content have not been addressed yet on the talk page, I am going to remove it until WP:CONSENSUS is gained through a more thorough discussion. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason Lewis (congressman). 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/20111005232617/http://radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2240144&spid=24698 to http://radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2240144&spid=24698

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) 19:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of history that has drawn intense interest
While appearing as a radio host over a number of years, Lewis made many inflammatory statements. After CNN reviewed years of audio in 2018, his disparaging of what he believed to be core issues of concern for women voters which were otherwise insignificant to him, has come to the fore and received widespread coverage. Included in those remarks were his expression of regrets that he would be perceived negatively if he continued to refer to women as "sluts." That term, included by a number of editors drawing from reliable sources, has been repeatedly removed from the "political positions" section in the absence of Talk page discussion about such removals. Wikipedia is not censored, and avoiding this issue and the coverage it has generated does a disservice to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. I submit that it should stay in that section. The deleted subhead in that section was unwieldy at best and should not be restored. I had noticed the coverage because I receive and regularly read the Star-Tribune's headlines because of my interest in a state policy issue, rather than electoral issues. I'll restore the redacted language to the section in question and provide appropriate reliable sourcing. Activist (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Add Labor Section under political positions
The following could be of interest to individuals attempting to ascertain his political record prior to the election. It should be added under the "political positions" headline:

Labor

Lewis has voted against anti-labor, union-opposed, amendments attempting to undo prevailing wage requirements established under the Davis-Bacon Act. Additionally, he has been an outspoken supporter of mineral exploration activities and lease renewals in the state of Minnesota if they are pursued through existing environmental review processes1 and urged the Minnesota Public Utility Commission and federal government to approve of the Enbridge Line 3 project.2 These actions earned him the endorsement of several Labor Unions. "Jason Lewis has made an effort to get to know our Union, understand our issues, and has taken politically tough stances in support of good paying Union jobs," George said in a statement. "We don't always agree on every issue, but we know that when it comes to supporting our jobs, he has stood with us, and that is why we are standing with him." 3

1https://jasonlewis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=123

2 http://www.startribune.com/four-members-of-congress-approve-line-3-replacement-on-enbridge-s-preferred-route/485001471/

3 https://freebeacon.com/politics/two-unions-endorse-minnesota-republican/

I do not believe I am using any Primary Sources, i appreciate you pointing out the wikipedia rules of the road WP:RSPRIMARY. HoldenontheHill (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)