Talk:Keith Ellison/Archive 1

Error

 * Ellison’s father was a physiatrist and his mother was a social worker.

psychiatrist? physician? I don't know, someone else should correct this. Torgo 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like physciatrist is right, but fyi Physiatry is a real branch of medicine. Deborah-jl

Nation of Islam "Muslims" should be clearly noted as being such when the word Muslims is used as the majority of Muslims including Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufis do not recognize Nation of Islam as a religion but more of a political movement twisting the basic principles of Islam to suit their own agenda.
 * Sign your comments, please, with ~ Rob C (Alarob) 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

African-American Politicians
Shouldn't he be placed in this category too? jcm 9/12/6

"Anti-Semitism"
Alan Cooperman says, writing in today's Washington Post,
 * "The first article defended Farrakhan against accusations of anti-Semitism. The second called affirmative action a "sneaky" form of compensation for slavery, suggesting instead that white Americans pay reparations to blacks."

Patrick Condon wrote, on Wed, Jul. 05, 2006
 * "One column defended Farrakhan against charges of anti-Semitism; a second suggested the creation of a state for black residents. In 1995, Ellison helped organize a delegation to Farrakhan's Million Man March in Washington."

Tom Harrison Talk 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a published letter that we can cite, that would be great. Tom Harrison Talk 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom, here is a link to the actual letter http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/keithellisonletterto%20JCRC.pdf. Thanks for your help. Your continued direction and advice would be appreciated.


 * The letter can only be included if it has been published in a reliable source. In this case, that might include Ellison's campaign website, or a press release. Then we could attribute it to him or his campaign. A blog would not do as a source, unless it's Ellison's blog. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Tom's take on the inclusion of the letter. As a conservative, I would like nothing better than to include it, but any negative information about a living person must be solidly sourced by sources that meet WP:RS, per WP:BLP. Blogs are not generally considered reliable, particularly on BLP issues, unless it is the subject's own blog, and that can be verified. Crockspot 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living people
Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people applies to all living people. We can't include uncited material about Representative Ellison, or about his political opponents, or anyone else. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Please compare this page with the page for Alan Fine the Republican candidate for this race - this page is turning non partisan - and should be a biographical account of Keith Ellison - there is no evidence he was a member of Nation of Islam - and if we use things in this article which are partisan why are they not being used in the other article. Alan Fine made two stinging attacks on Ellison n which a lot of local newspapers are condemning as extremist. I see no mention of this on Alan Fine's page. This is a living person and a biography and I feel we are overstepping the POV line here.

Ellison was never a member of the Nation of Islam, nor did he use Anti Semitic comments, I have removed the references to this and also the reference to the Gubernatorial candidates backing Ellison as this is a biography about the person, and I am following suit with the Fine article and ensuing fair play.

Where were the equating comments about Keith Ellison when he attacked Arlon Lindner the Republican who denied the Holocaust. Keith Ellison condemned Lindner. Ellison is also very supportive of gay marriage. The equation that he is a racist, homophobe which is implied in the comments on this page are a totally subjective POV. There was no mention of his acceptance speech which had people of all religions, colors, races, ages, and the theme was love and peace.

Rej4sl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rej4sl (talk • contribs).


 * Alan Fine is best discussed at Talk:Alan Fine. Where do we say that Ellison was a member of the nation of Islam, or made anti-Semitic comments? Finally, I'm not sure a political speech in praise of love and peace is entirely notworthy. Tom Harrison Talk 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to ignore my comments - this article is not NPOV - it needs to balance the comments about his alleged involvement with the Nation of Islam with his condemnations of Holocaust revisionism, and his positive comments regarding gay marriage. All I ask for his balance - this article is too one sided. Rej4sl (talk


 * Again, where do we say that Ellison was a member of the nation of Islam, or that he made anti-Semitic comments? Tom Harrison Talk 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV Rej4sl (talk

Seems that we have struck a good balance! The process has worked well. At least for now...I'd imagine that this article will change a lot in the next week or so...V105memorial Talk


 * I would point out that the overwhelming content of this pievce is focused on guilt-by-association accusations leveled against Ellison by partisan opponents, which, although vaguely supported by the links, hardly seems neutral at all. Astro Zombie 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

David Strom
removed items quoted from this blog - as not WP

Link to CAIR Criticism
You people are missing the boat. It should be linked later because to do do it where you want it, it implies that the link is related to Tammy Lee's criticsm.

Wikipedia used as a Campaign platform
This page is full of baseless allegations intended for poltical gain rather than informative purpouses. The lock MUST be removed because the neutrality of this article is in question.

totally disputed
This article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons

Rej4sl 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot personally vouch for anything in this article, but it seems to me most of the assertions are documented with citations. Appraiser 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this article is biased. The subject's Muslim faith seems to attract bias and prejudice. His being African-American only adds to the mix. I ask editors to scrutinize their sources with care. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, please don't be paranoid and assume anyone has anything against Muslims or African Americans. There is nothing in Islam that says that anyone has to defend someone a hate-inciting person like Farakan.  Unfortunately, it is an honest concern about this guy.  He needs to be given a chance, but this article should not be censored to take out anything about his past that might be concerning.  Elizmr 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a better biography today - It just seemed like a campaign article before - a lot of the information was not sourced properly and came from unreliable sources like Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune who is a conservative opinion piece in the paper - her sources are often unreliable and do not need to be fact checked like an article - I am not against controversies in the article but put them in context and not overtake the article like a campaign leaflet .. Keith Ellison made mistakes and apologized for them and this has been accepted by a large section of the Jewish community - he has fought against holocaust revisionism in the MN house - his past actions he regrets .. we all make mistakes..

Rej4sl 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. It is all part of the record.  He defended Farakan, he later apologized.  Apologizing doesn't make it go away, and it should stay in the article along with the apology.  He is a servant of the people and the people have a right to know his history, don't they?  Elizmr 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Blogs are not allowed sources. Can an interested party remove them? If not I will remove them and place  templates instead. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this page is actually pretty tricky to understand, may I suggest clearing it up a bit? The information is a little disjointed - and a lot of the quotes are too close together and confusing - so Keith Ellison claimed that Louis Farrakhan was not an anti-Semite, but was actually proven wrong when it turned out that Lous Farrakhan actually was an anti-Semite - and did something similar happen with Joanne Jackson? This "we (who's "we"? Keith Ellison? The Minneapolis-St. Paul Study Group of the Nations of Islam?) support Ms. Jackson: She is correct about Minister Farrakhan. He is not a racist. He is also not an anti-Semite." comment is pretty confusing. But what did Joanne Jackson say about Louis Farrakhan? I just thought she made an anti-Semitic remark - and anyway, who is Joanne Jackson? It doesn't say anything about who she is, who she works for or her relation to Louis Farrakhan or Keith Ellison. This "we support their support of that person's supporting something else entirely" rings kind of strange to me. And the quote in the line "A 1997 Star Tribune article said 'Ellison, an attorney who used his religious name of Mohammed in speaking to the board, read a statement supporting Jackson.'"? This is all just a little too confusing to me. And also, using blogs for references probably isn't a good idea, especially about politicians. Factual information tends to go out the window. Kage 258 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Length of Sources section
Dlz28 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Is there any way to shorten the "Sources" section? It seems to be very large in comparison the article.
 * Agreed. There are a number of doubled footnotes. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As contentious as this article has been, given the controversies around this man, we must continue to demand good sources and citations. Jonathunder 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is (as discussed in the next section) about half the article is under the heading Controversies. The election is over, so perhaps we can now write a biography in the tone appropriate to an encyclopedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

removed blogs
blogs not allowed as reliable source Rej4sl 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The littlegreenfootballs link was restored; I removed it again. The description of Ellison as "CAIR Congressman" and of supporters as"scream[ing] 'Allahu Akbar!'" is highly POV. It is not intended to promote "cultural understanding" but to link Ellison to popular images of, say, the Taliban or jihadists. It does not shed light on the issues, but only adds heat. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a news clip there. It is not POV to show an actual news clip, but as a blog it is a bad source.  Elizmr 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hosting a news clip that is not owned by the site is copyright violation, so it should still not be linked to. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your're albsolutely right. I added the link to the news station itself, but it looks like it was deleted.  I'll put it back.  I'm assuming that is ok with you?  Elizmr 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most sources linked to are under copyright by somebody, and this is fine. If there's a source for cries of Allah akbar at his victory speech, they should be cited and linked, if possible. Jonathunder 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The video shows it happening (not that there is anything wrong with it--it was a happy moment) so I put something in the text to indicate. It was a nice speech.  Elizmr 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a concern about setting a proper context for "cries of Allah[u] akbar." It is commonly assumed (in the context of the "war on terror") to be something like a war cry, or an assertion of Islamic superiority. It invokes images of jihadists, as I mentioned before. But in fact, among Muslim groups it is a sign of approval, like applause or cheers. I attended a function for an Islamic school in Alabama, and was surprised at first to hear the crowd call out "Takbeer" -- "Allahu akbar" to praise students who had won academic awards. I believe this explains the response to Keith Ellison's speech. The video of Ellison's speech, and the subsequent commentary in the newsroom, seem to put this in context.
 * More to the point, Ellison did not "yell 'God is great!'" He said, "God is good, y'all," and he did not raise his voice. When a volunteer yelled "Takbeer!" followed by "Allahu akbar!", Ellison did not join in and did not appear to welcome the demonstration.
 * I edited the relevant sentences, and corrected the Arabic phrase to "Allahu akbar."
 * One last comment: I feel this moment does not deserve intense scrutiny. Looking over the commentary on Ellison's campaign, I detect an almost paranoid sense that he must be hiding something, or that there's something wrong with allowing a Muslim into the halls of Congress under any circumstances. (I am not referring to WP editors, but to mass media and bloggers.) This does not represent my country at its best. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I also removed some editorializing remarks. This happy moment for the first Muslim in congress surely deserves mention, not over scrutiny.  Americans are concerned about and involved in their political process.  This does not reflect any paranoia.  Elizmr 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. The sections are adding extra white space at the end of sections. Not a big deal, but noticeable. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I might add that the "happy moment" is described in a cursory manner at the end of a subsection headed Nation of Islam, which opens a section titled Controversies. Of course controversial matters should be discussed. But it appears that almost everything about Keith Ellison is being described in an overall framework stamped Controversial. I don't think this is deliberate; it may be leftover detritus from editors acting in the heat of the campaign. Still, it could be improved upon. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is in the wrong section. Elizmr 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

removal of blog material
I have removed the blog material in concordance with Wiki policy - It keeps being reinserted by a user who on his talk page has been warned about this kind of thing.. I am getting fed up of deleting it and it being reverted back by the same user Can an administrator look into this Rej4sl 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope someone cleans up this article - it seems hypocritical to mention that God was mentioned at his victory speech - when you saw victory speech from other winners on CNN and MSNBC who kept thanking God and this is not made into a big deal. Second this rubbish about CAIR - Republicans accepted donations by CAIR also and the leader of CAIR has met with the President and been photographed with him. It just seems all this is to condemn Keith Ellison - but when others do the same things it is not mentioned - this biography is a blot in Wikipedia - it is not NPOV and breaks Wiki guidelines on biographies of living people. Rej4sl 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope the article is NPOV! If reliable sources note that republicans are associated with CAIR, then write about it in their biographies. I agree that blogs shouldn't be cited, but article text that cites reliable sources shouldn't be removed. Andjam 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying remove information - but this article is way over the top - it needs to be cleaned up and more encyclopedia like Rej4sl 14:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The information being deleted is sourced from newspapers and not from blogs. (SEWilco 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

I ask muslim wikipedians to respect the rules and not turn this place into an activist platform. If something is backed up with a reliable source, it must stay where it is. so I restored the "allahu Akbar" incident, as there is a video that supports its accuracy. Vincent_shooter 12:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

blogs
It is from blogs - powerline and Keith Ellison for Dummies as per the references - blogs are not permitted on WP Rej4sl 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look again at what you're deleting. The text is based on the content of newspaper articles and Ellison's own letter, not from whatever text is in Keith Ellison for Dummies.  (SEWilco 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Hi guys, we need to quote from the original sources and not from the blogs quoting the orig sources. If we are quoting the orig sources, the cites need to stay and if anyone takes them out they will be reverted.  Elizmr 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

post election reorg
I put election details at the bottom of the article taking them out of the lead. They seem irrlevant there now. Also, I gave religion its own section at the end of "life" and put the post election video there as it does not belong in the controversy secton as someone said above. Elizmr 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nation of Islam section
I did a major clean up and condensation of the nation of islam section. I put everything in chronological order. If anyone adds anything there, please note that the order is now chronological.


 * Someone reverted a lot of what I did. Please note that I did not delete anything, I just arranged it chronologically. It is not a whitewash.  I put back my version.  Please explain before undoing hard work, OK?  Elizmr 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

needed info
Does anyone know what kind of Islam Ellison converted into and what kind of Islam he practices now? Could anyone add more details about his accomplishments and projects? The article seems very balanced towards controversy. While that needs to stay, it seems important to balance the article. Elizmr 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
I deleted the parking tickets, taxes and the thing about the lawsuit with former employee as attacking, overly personal, and irrelevant. They are still in former versions if people feel they need to be in there. Also, I took out the sentence about gays and lesbians in the holocaust. It was completely irrelevant to the seection. If anyone wanted to write a section on Ellison's support of the GLBT community, it would be appropriate there and the sentence is still in the archives. Elizmr 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed and completely disputed tags: can we get rid of them now? Elizmr 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not if a great deal of well-sourced material is removed to make the article a whitewash, no. It is a fact of the man's life that he has had legal problems and other controversies. Pretend for a moment the article is about someone in a different political party, or of a different faith, but was elected to Congress with this record of not paying fines and taxes. You might reasonably object to that being taken out, and I do. Jonathunder 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough, but the thing about the woman is over the top I think. Can we take that out?  Elizmr 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it over the top? Lots of politicians have such accusations noted in their articles, and, like it or not, they're relevant in American politics. Kairos 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is sort of a "he said, she said" kind of a thing which doesn't really say anything specific about him. I am not saying it has to go, it just doesn't seem very notable.  I was trying to get the tag off the article and thought this deletion would help.  Elizmr 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless or until the section regarding Amy Alexander has more substantiation, I would agree it could go. If the rest of the article is well-sourced and not tenditiously written (one way or the other), let's remove the tags, too. Jonathunder 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section. I think that Ellison's previous and current political positions and affiliations are relevant but his personal life is his own business and irrelevant. Elizmr 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, parts of his personal life are in the article (he is married, has children, etc.) but since this whole section was not well-substantiated or clear, I agree it can be removed on that basis. Jonathunder 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the standard biographical details are different from stuff about afairs, jobs and restraining orders, but thanks for agreeing to remove it. Elizmr 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
Do not link sites hosting copyrighted content that doesn't belong to them. This is what makes the blog link doubly un-useable. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Zealous partiality
I think it's useless to play the silly little edit/revert game, as it seems Keith's partisans are reigning like tyrants over this article. This is the reason why more and more people, do not take Wikipedia seriously anymore. It has become a political, ideological and religious platform and battleground for every zealot under the sun. Now the purpose of this encyclopedia is no more informing the reader, but putting what the editor judges to be the right thing. So we have people here who decide what is relevant and what is not, what people should read and what they should not read, and the list goes on. When I have time, I will try to contact some of our repuatble administrators to clean this mess up, and restore the objectivity and neutrality this encyclopedia is supposed to champion.

Vincent_shooter 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia - dumbed down
Why on earth are blogs allowed as sources on this biography - I remove them as per Wiki policy and they keep being reverted - so I think why am I wasting my time - anyone who clicks on the links can see they are hosted by powerlineblog - this article is biased and been taken over by people who have no idea what neutrality means. For the record I am not a supporter of Keith Ellison, nor am I a Democrat nor a Republican. I am just someone interested in politics and shocked to see that someone's reputation can be tarred so much by an article on Wikipedia. I read that controversies were allowed on biographies as long as they did not take over the article - it seems that 90% of this article is controversies from disreputable sources.

Note Blogs are not supposed to be allowed - but they are on this biography for some reason Opinion is supposed to be neutral but most of the comments on here come from right wing blogs or from conservative speakers in the Star Tribune - note that an opinion piece in a newspaper is not based on fact nor is it substantiated.

I honestly believe this article should a)be deleted or b)protected until it is neutral point of view. If the neutral tags are removed I will be astonished. Rej4sl 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality by administrators - please do not remove this tag until this has been done. It is not sufficient for each statement to be sourced, it has to be from a reliable source - which blogs, or opinion pages are not - this is not a biography which is neutral and it does not conform to Wiki policy Rej4sl 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rej4sl - Please let us know what specific statements in the article you object to. The article has a host of reliable sources, including many news articles. Which things, specifically, are you saying are not sourced and not true? Jonathunder 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathunder - I am talking about the references linked to Keith Ellison for Dummies and to Powerline these are blogs and not reliable sources - I have removed them and they keep being reverted - see above - other unreliable sources are candidate statements which are not based on fact but opinion, other unreliable sources are opinion pages from newspapers - I will compile a list but this is what I find unreliable about this article - legitimate sources do exist in this article - and I have no problems with any part of the article or the bringing up of any item in the article as long as it is sourced from fact and neutral sources - if all people can bring to the biography, are blogs and opinion pieces they are best left out of the article. It seems that the controversies section is based on the campaign - and maybe it can be shortened and given a section called "2006 election campaign" = and sub headers "issues raised or controversies" a lot of it is not really relevant and like I said it comes from dubious sources. A lot of the article is well written, it is just this section that is non NPOV. Rej4sl 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Allah Ahkbar and secondary sources
The phrase "Allah Ahkbar" was shouted, but I don't think it should be mentioned in the article. Here's why:

The citation given is basically a primary source. We ought to be citing a secondary source which discusses whether saying "Allah Ahkbar" is noteworthy. Some bloggers regard it as noteworthy, but a google news search suggests that mainstream media aren't particularly interested. this google news search for Keith Ellison and Allah only got five hits.
 * Congress' first Muslim can build bridges - a false hit - the Allah wasn't to do with Allah Ahkbar.
 * an opinion piece in apparently a Bible prophecy web site - not a very notable source.
 * Fifth, Sixth Districts: Close, but so far away - Allah wasn't to do with Allah Ahkbar.
 * a letter to the editor at the star tribune. Letters to the editors aren't very notable or reliable.
 * "Muslims: as unique as you and me" - the article has disappeared, but doesn't seem to be mentioning Allah Ahkbar.

We should leave interpreting statements like "Allah Ahkbar" to reliable sources, rather than arguing about it amongst ourselves. Thanks, Andjam 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is ok to cite a primary source WP:RS. It is presented neutrally in the article.  An encyclopedia should contain more than the MSM.  Elizmr 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation of Don Shelby
The article has


 * On Nov. 14, 2006 a monitor of Jihadists Web sites linked to Al Qaeda reported that "terrorists don't think much of Keith Ellison. One called him the first Jewish Muslim in Congress.

I had a look at the citation, and the header of the article said "Friday night, Don wondered what jihadists would think about the election of the nation's first Muslim to Congress, Minnesotan Keith Ellison. Tonight, Don says, we have the answer." The article suggests that last Friday he didn't know much about what the jihadists thought about Ellison. Either the Jihadists hadn't said much about Ellison before the Friday (unlikely), or that he isn't a regular "monitor of Jihadists Web sites" Also, Don Shelby doesn't seem to mention him being an expert on jihad either. Any thoughts? Andjam 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * weird non-notable quote imoElizmr 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Shelby is a local TV news anchor man. Celebrity figures should not be assumed to have expertise merely due to having a recognizable face.  He could be quoted as speaking the news from WCCO TV, or for an opinion.  (SEWilco 06:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC))


 * This section is currently labeled "Al-Queda" (sorry, sp) is misleading.  It is actually an editorial by Don Shelby that the paragraph links to and not the "Jihadist Web site" spots.  Does anyone have links to the originial Jihadist Web site spots?  Elizmr 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I tried to fix it. I combined it with the Glenn Beck piece because both are dealing with the question of how KE feels about radical Islam and vice versa.   I put a new section heading on them, and made it clear that we were not reporting the content that appeared on a radical Islamist Web site or two but rather the content of a TV editorial which was absent from the text.  I tried to get the content of the 'Jihadist web site" but when I went it was only in Arabic and I can't read it.  It looked like it required registration, so I couldn't even search to see if Ellison's picture or name appears anywhere.  Elizmr 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All mention of the Shelby comments should be dropped. If you look at the link its nothing but an undeclared blog entry. It says "Don wondered what jihadists would think about the election of the nation's first Muslim to Congress, Minnesotan Keith Ellison. Tonight, Don says, we have the answer. ... My original hope was that Muslims in the Middle East would see Ellison's election as evidence of an open and democratic society. That the terrorists hate Ellison as much as any American actually makes me feel just as good." This is not unbiased reporting this is a reporters blog. He doesn't source any of the information, his bio on the CBS affiliate’s website makes no claim he can read arabic, and he doesn't name any expert who gave him this info. A reporters blog is still a blog and therefore not up to wiki standards. Also the claim that Ellison ever invoked McVeigh is unfounded, the source quotes an AP story that says "Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, sees it this way: Osama bin Laden no more represents Ellison's religion than Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity." There's no way to tell if this is Ellison's opinion or the reporters and it should be dropped unless it can be sourced directly to him.


 * Found a UPI story with same quotes & better source info, added it to the segment. Seems to eliminate problems cited above.--Wowaconia 13:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Found original source for Shelby and UPI stories, New York Daily News story - replaced Shelby segment with SITE segment. As SITE isn't part of the media put it in its own section.--Wowaconia 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Allahu akbar
During his victory speech, Ellison said, "God is good, y'all," and some of his supporters cried out "Allahu akbar" (Arabic for "God is great").

This is a bit misleading. I watched the video and it sounded like two or three voices max. That sounds like "a couple" not "some of his supporters". He did win by a landslide. But how is this relevant to the subject of this article anyway? Would it be included if someone had shouted "amen" or "hallelujah"? --75.72.161.204 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it doesn't seem especially notable. Do we even know that the people who shouted it were his supporters, and not opponents who were doing it ironically?  Either seems possible, neither seems notable.  I'm more curious about Ellison's specific religious affiliation. Шизомби 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is just a link to his happy victory celebration. It is from a good source. What's the problem? And the language is fine "some" of his supporters doesn'nt really imply much. It is an interesting tape. Elizmr 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that I doubt that some people said it, but that it seems terribly trivial to be included in an encyclopedia entry. As you say, it "doesn't really imply much," so what does it add?  Шизомби 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It documents the victory celebration of the first Muslim elected to the US congress. Why isn't that encyclopedic?  It is historic, actually.  Elizmr 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It will be used against him by some, perhaps many... and I suspect that bringing it up here would be in furtherance of that goal. Wahkeenah 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would it? With all due respect, I think this is a little paranoid. I would like to see more links out to TV spots documenting reallife events in Wikipedia.  It is a great functionality of this type of encylcopedia over text encyclopedias--why not take advangtage of it???? Elizmr 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any personal problem with someone saying "God is great" in Arabic, but that expression does scare a lot of other Americans because they've heard Saddam Hussein and a host of other middle eastern Islamic leaders and fighting men saying or yelling it. So by connecting it with Ellison, it's a "label" of sorts. Keeping such expressions in their native language adds to their negative-propaganda value. Consider some of the World War II phraseology, such as "Sieg heil", which simply means "Hail victory", but sounded more sinister when kept in the native German. Similarly, notice how whenever a Muslim speaks of God, they always quote him as saying "Allah", not "God". As I understand it, those words mean basically the same thing. But by continuing to say "Allah", the subtle message to the American Christian is that the God of Islam is not the "real" God, i.e the "Christian God". Wahkeenah 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is original research wp:or. Pleae give Americans some credit for not being bigoted and jumping to bigoted assumptions. If anything, this spot stresses that Allah = the Christian God = the Jewish G-d and the expression is not a warlike one. And Americans are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, Shinto, etc etc--ie not all Christians. Elizmr 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page, not the article. I am American, and I know what I'm talking about. There is a great deal of suspicion of Islam in this country, and if you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention. Making a deal over his supporters saying this, does nothing but help feed bigotry (assuming bigots read wikipedia). Wahkeenah 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am am American too. The way to fight bigotry is not to hide what one is but to show it.  Elizmr 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you. As I see it, the only purpose of citing the supposed fact that someone yelled that phrase is to make a thing out of him being Islamic. Obviously, that wasn't a significant problem for my district, who were mostly concerned about holding onto the Democratic House seat. But to many Americans, that phrase automatically carries anti-American baggage. Wahkeenah 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved this statement out of the background segment to the segment about the 2006 election. When it was in the background section the statement had no relation to the sentences that proceeded them. It makes sense to speak of Ellison's controversial association with the Nation of Islam and his downplaying of his religious background in his background section, but having this sentence follow it implies that something controversial happened at the victory rally when nothing did. It is not controversial for politicians to thank their god nor is it controversial for Muslims to say "Allahu akbar". I'm sure President Bush hears our allies Hamid Karzai, Pervez Musharraf, Jalal Talabani, & Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (whose entertaing the Pres. in his country as I write this) say "Allahu akbar" all the time. I bet our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan hear this from the troops and police their training(and trusting their lives to) out in the field all the time. The only place I can think of offhand where saying this is controversial would be if you were a Uighur in Communist China. Americans using there rights to choose their own religion and express it at moments of joy isn't controversial its (thankfully) run of the mill.--Wowaconia 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I reworked the sentence. 1- There is a problem using the term "supporters" when that is not known (though likely). 2- "Some supporters" is too vague for what sounded like loud shouting from a couple people. 3- I think the wiki link to takbir is enough, so I removed the English explanation. The sentence was getting too long. --75.72.161.204 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence was precise in describing actual events and the inclusion of the English translation is helpful for context he says "God is good" they respond in agreement with "God is great". The link provides more in-depth historical context to "Allahu akbar" but the inclusion of the English translation here provides immediate context for how this relates to what Ellison just said.--Wowaconia 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Anon's explanation completely implausible.  It should be in.  Elizmr 11:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to describe your interpretation of the event, when you can describe the event itself accurately and without any vagaries. To everyone who doesn't watch the video, they are going to read "some of his supporters shouted allahu akbar" - what like half of them? This sentence is flawed and it doesn't have to be. But it seems some want it that way. --75.72.161.204 14:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot. It's "responded with cries of Allahu akbar". How is language neutral? "Cries"? Come on. --75.72.161.204 14:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, how is that NOT neutral? would "shouts" be better? It is straight description. Elizmr 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Shouted" definitely reads better than "responded with cries of", which is wordy. "Cried" could have worked also. Or, how about just "responded"? Wahkeenah 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "shouted" captures it better becuase they do say it loudly in a celebratory way. Are we ok with this?  Elizmr 23:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems fine. As with the alleged domestic dispute, that bit of news will probably disappear over time, unless a pattern emerges. Wahkeenah 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Alexander's Allegations
Since this wiki article is a biography of a living person it is by definition bound to change. Currently this info about her allegations is worthy of inclusion because it is current news about an allegation that surfaced in the media during Ellison's campaign (see all the references). As her case has been ruled groundless this info will lose relevance as a few months go by and should be dropped then. Right now readers familiar with the case but not the outcome will find the info useful. The nameless editor that deleted the info claimed it is a case of "he said she said" if they would have read the segment they would see that is not the case. The courts have declared it is a case of her being wrong and Ellison being freed of any culpability on this issue. Currently its wiki-worthy in a few months it will be less than a footnote and should be dropped then.--Wowaconia 23:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the court had "ruled groundless" these accusations, that is a good reason they don't belong here. What the court did do, of course, was found the burden of proof required for an order for protection had not been met. Hence, it makes even less sense to burden the article with this. Wikipedia is not a blog; it's an encyclopedia. Leave it out. User:65.120.15.226 00:04, 22 November 2006 and 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the segment and look at its sources? I am not posting from a blog (nor am I trying to create a blog), I'm citing established Minnesota newspapers and the Associated Press. Click on the references!!! Look at my previous statement on this thread - this is current news and in a little while it will not be relevent but it is relevant now - look at wiki standards under WP:LIVING. And why aren't you signing your discussion statements or logging in to edit? Please do so to avoid the appearance of vandalism.--Wowaconia 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the "current event" tag should be re-added, as kind of a "fudge factor" against this discussion. P.S. I'm not the IP address, I just added that info as FYI. Wahkeenah 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the current events tag and have added it.--Wowaconia 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At a minimum there should be mention that during the 2006 campaign there were allegations made which a judge later ruled against. Keep all the links to the sources in case the issue reappears.  The judge already considered that the issue might reappear during the 2008 election.  (SEWilco 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Per the living persons policy, these unsubstantiated allegations just don't belong in a bio article. Jonathunder 14:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In reading it, it looks like it's nothing. If a pattern emerges, that might be more important. But if someone adds it back, maybe they can at least fix the grammar. Yuch. Wahkeenah 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wahkeenah. It sounds like a nothing. I would be in favor of it going away. It sounds like a smear. Elizmr 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at the following quotes (emphasis added) found at wiki-standards under WP:LIVING
 * In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. …Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Lets look at the standards above concerning the segment “Alexander’s Allegations”. First they were reported by the Minneapolis StarTribune in several articles and an article in USA Today. These sources are all cited in the segment as per wiki-standards. The outcome of the case was reported by several sources, the one originally cited is from Forbes Magazine who printed the Associated Press story, other papers that ran the same story by the AP are The Dunton Springs Evening Post ; The Houston Chronicle ; Fox News The Seattle Post Intelligencer ; The Minnesota ABC affiliate KSTP The Lacross Tribune The Winona Daily News. I found over 70 newspapers across the United States who judged this AP story newsworthy and ran it. The AP story was also deemed newsworthy internationally. It was picked up by France’s International Herald Tribune ; by Canada’s Ottawa Recorder ; Canada’s Westfall Weekly News ; Canada’s Hinesberg Journal ; and Canada’s Pierceland Herald ; Australia’s Path Publishing Group magazine “Leading the Charge” also ran the story. I have also added the citation of The Columbus Ledger & Enquirer in the segment, they print the story as reported by Rochelle Olson. This version also ran in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I am not advocating this segment about Alexander be left permanently in this wiki-article, and I would willingly discuss when it should be dropped – say when Ellison is sworn in at DC with the rest of the House in January. It does not seem unreasonable to post information about Ellison that newspapers across America and ACROSS THE PLANET found newsworthy. It is a fact that Ellison had his attorney at the court and the court found for Ellison. He put effort into this and he prevailed, his accusers where found meritless. How is this not about him? Where do you see any bias on my part? Where do you see any wiki-standards being violated? I agreed with the comment about the grammar choices being in error including a misspelling of the word “allegations” - I have endeavored to correct that and thank you for pointing it out.--Wowaconia 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the mainstream media always shows the best judegement about what to cover and concentrate on. I am not sure this is important enough to be on a bio page and will weigh in with that comment  Elizmr 23:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I agree according to Wikipedia rules it is ok to be in the article.  Elizmr 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Denomination?
Most other US politicians' articles seem to identify specific denominations rather than umbrella religions. Is there any information about Ellison's? Sunni? NOI? What mosque he attends? Шизомби 12:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Though he downplays it now, he was earlier associated with the Nation of Islam. Today he attends the Masjid An-Nur mosque in North Minneapolis and identifies as Sunni. Jonathunder 01:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a cite for this? If so we could put it in the article.  Elizmr 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Googling for Masjid An-Nur + Ellison gave these two news articles:
 * Star Tribune
 * City Pages
 * Jonathunder 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/special_packages/election2004/election2004/16026697.htm reports that Keith is a Sunni (hope this helps) Rej4sl 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sabo
Where do you get that "Sabo made several appearances with Independence candidate Tammy Lee"? all the references say is that he let her use his picture with him in her campaign literature and her website. If he showed up with her in her campaign that needs its own citation or the sentence needs to be changed.


 * As I could find no refs that said Sabo appeared with Lee, I changed it to what the refs we have say - that he let her use his picture.--Wowaconia 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oath on Koran
I have removed the "controversy" section on Ellison planning to take the oath of offlice on the Koran. Unlike the other controversy sections, which were well documented as major issues, such as his failure to pay taxes for some years, this is more along the lines of one guy saying stuff, and some blogs picking it up. (Haven't they read the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution?) Perhaps it will become a significant public controversy, notable enough for inclusion in a bio article, but that time is not yet. Jonathunder 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not shocked this is a state who elected a pro-wrestler before after all, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."Mibo123 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a front-page story on USAToday.com, thanks to the stink raised by publicity-seeking pundit Dennis Prager. Keep in mind, the Constitution does not specifically make that guarantee. Just like there's no constitutional right to privacy, or separation of church and state, because (in the right-wingers' minds) it doesn't use those specific words. That's what they call "strict construction". Wahkeenah 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The words "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" seem to be about as clear on making someone use a particular religious item or book to take office they as could possibly be, strictly constructed. Jonathunder 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth including, it has even made the news in Austria today -- I think if it's notable enough to cross the Atlantic, then it's big enough to be included here. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, this is not much of a controversy. It is more about the media trying to create a controversy and scare people about Ellison than a controversy of its own right.  Elizmr 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is definitely notable. I've had a near-news blackout, and I managed to hear about it while passing by a radio.  However, it might be giving undue weight to the topic, as it appears to be given more space in this article than any other single topic.  Perhaps it should be revisited in a month (or as Inauguration approaches, or passes) to evaluate if this is very notable, or just a brief flare-up.  I suspect it will (and should) be eventually shortened. Ufwuct 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "the decision by Rep.-elect Ellison to be sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible" - can anyone provide a link where Ellision has said he would be sworn in on the Koran? SuluG 19:42, 2 December 2006 (PST)

I think it's appropriate to have some mention of this, although it ends up being more about CAIR and Prager - maybe it should be moved to Prager's article. Also No religious test clause doesn't have anything about swearing-in ceremonies, so maybe that should be expanded (or in another article). This article is rather short on Ellison's politics - his history in the Minnesota legislature and his campaign platform for the House. Шизомби 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a tendency for bio articles to have too much about a very current event and too little about a person before the events they are most known for, but we should strive for balance. I agree this article is out of balance. If you can expand on his carreer in the state legislature, that would be helpful. Meanwhile, the controversy on using the Koran during the swearing in ceremony deserves no more than a paragraph, at most. The stuff about CAIR and Prager belongs in those articles: this article needs to focus on Ellison. Jonathunder 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reduced the info in this article to a paragraph as suggested above, moved bulk of info to its own page as controversy over Prager's remarks (not Ellison's wishes) seems to be growing. Included link to the new page in paragraph. Renamed the segment remaining and included it with other media reactions and renamed that segment to reflect the change. --Wowaconia 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison is NOT taking his oath on the Quran Sartaj 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Sartaj
 * Have you read the article and for that matter is the author trying to purposely misguide us? No, Keith Ellison has not caved in as the title states. The article is just stating the obvious fact that no one uses a real Bible or Torah during the oath only during the PR photos which was the misunderstanding that started this whole thing in the first place. At least it seems this nonsense will die down now. Gdo01 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * - Can anyone provide a link where Ellision has said he would be sworn in on the Koran prior to Prager writing his column? -- SuluG 23:00, 5 December 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.91.241 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I was reported by ABC News November 11 and Star Tribune November 13  (SEWilco 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I included the ref your looking for in the new page thats wiki-linked in this segment. I'll paste it here for those watching this page its from Nov. 19 and Prager didn't write his piece until the 28th. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS07/611190577/1009 --Wowaconia 13:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this really important? This is a secular country where we have separation of church and state.  This is a non-issue, as noted above by Gdo01.  Elizmr 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"site monitoring"
I removed this section. The content seemed inappropriate. An article about what chat room participants are saying abotu Ellison implying what???? a reply from ellison's media manager from the same article??? has the look of publicity created by someone for some reason and whatever that is it is not encyclopedic. Elizmr 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sources for the article The New York Daily News investigator had Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute a non-profit organization look at websites used by terrorist sympathizers. This was seen as significant enough to be picked up by the global news service UPI. You tagged deletion of this segment 23:06, 11 December 2006 Elizmr (Talk | contribs) (→SITE's monitoring -completely not notable; probably a publicity thing set up by ellison himself) shows you either did not read any of the sources or are motivated by POV. Either way the information passes all wiki-standards and should remain. Moving it to some poorly renamed segment doesn't make sense as it was not media generated - NY Daily News did not generate the terrorist web traffic they reported on it.Wowaconia 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says that the NY DAILY news ASKED SITE to see what they were saying about Ellison on the sites. The institute did not undertake this independently and report on it independetly.  It was requested by a tabloid (that's what the Daily News is, a tabloid) and reported by a tabloid and other tabloid equivalent TV outlets.  The title "SITE MONITORING" is misleading.  And these are not actual terrorist orgs saying anything officially.  The Wikipedia section heading is a distortion.  Elizmr 12:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute’s website (emphasis added) – On their homepage http://www.siteinstitute.org/ they list themselves as an Intelligence Subscription Service not a non-profit or a news paper. On their mission statement page http://www.siteinstitute.org/mission.html they say...
 * Thorough and Unique Methodology. Through continuous and intensive examination of extremist websites, public records, and international media reports, as well as through undercover work on both sides of the Atlantic, the SITE Institute swiftly locates links among terrorist entities and their supporters. Once a potential terrorist entity is identified, either through SITE's ongoing internal research or via a client's specific query, SITE conducts a comprehensive investigation on the target and entities affiliated to it, scouring corporate records, tax forms, credit reports, videotapes, internet newsgroup postings, and owned websites, among other resources, for indicators of illicit activity. Such research has often yielded important leads that have been, and are continuously being, forwarded to pertinent law enforcement or government agencies, and/or information that has been used for government investigations, raids, and prosecutions, in the U.S and abroad.
 * Unparalleled Track Record. The SITE Institute works regularly with and provides important and often unique information to journalists, law firms pursuing civil litigation, major corporations, law enforcement, U.S. Congress, and numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Treasury Department, Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), the FBI, Customs, and the Department of Justice. SITE provides clients and interested parties with well-documented and comprehensive reports on terrorist entities and the individuals and organizations supporting them.  Excerpts from these reports frequently make their way into legal papers filed against terrorist entities and their supporters.

Your assertion that the New York Daily News is a mere tabloid fails to explain how it has won nine Pulitzer Prizes while the National Enquirer has won zero.
 * 1941: Reuben Maury won the Pulitzer Prize for his editorials at the News.
 * 1956: 26 staff photographers won the Pulitzer Prize for general photographic excellence.
 * 1959: Joe Martin and Phil Santora won the Pulitzer for a series of articles appearing in the News about the Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power.
 * 1974: William Sherman won the Pulitzer for exposing multi-million-dollar abuses in the City Medicaid program.
 * April 1986: Jimmy Breslin won the Pulitzer Prize for his columns.
 * 1996: Columnist E.R. Shipp won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.
 * 1998: Mike McAlary won the Pulitzer for exposing the police brutality scandal involving Abner Louima. :1999: The News's Editorial Board won a Pulitzer for a series of editorials about the neglect of Harlem's Apollo Theatre.
 * Also as noted in the segment the story met the editorial standards of and was quoted extensively by the global news agency United Press International (another Pulitzer Prize winning organization).

So the title “SITE monitoring” is not misleading at all. If you think the wiki-article on the SITE organization linked to in this segment does not explain what SITE does than you should address it on that page. The segment on Ellison’s page is fully referenced and up to all wiki-standards and therefore will remain. As it was a news report and not a media view it should not be associated with the Beck or Prager comments, as I noted in an earlier post to this thread.Wowaconia 20:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The tone of your reply is completely uncalled for. This is a group project. Language such as, "it will remain" is just not appropriate here. Did the SITE institute do the analysis on it's own or did the News ask it to do the analysis and then report on it? That is the crux of the matter. If it is the latter, than the title is not really exact. If the News asked SITE to do the work than it is a daily news report and the title should reflect this. Do you really disagree with this? Elizmr 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning SITE, their own website says that they practice “continuous and intensive examination of extremist websites” isn't that more succinctly called "monitoring" websties? If they as they say get their information from monitoring websites how is “SITE Monitoring” not appropriate? Your inclusion of a portion of the information under “Media controversies surrounding the 2006 Congressional election and aftermath - Comments from "Jihadi chat rooms" implies that somehow there is a controversy here when their is not. Please review my old post in this thread, the one quoting from SITE’s website (I emphasized the parts important to our discussion). SITE doesn't do anything without someone funding their research, that does not mean that the research is therefore a lie. The Times had them look for them, the source does not say they hired them but I think its fair to assume they did (but for me to say so would be OR). The fact that SITE might have demanded a fee for their services does not then mean that they made up the information in their report for the Times. The report was made by SITE, then the newspaper published part of the report. If you want to take issue with either organization than you should go to a page about them and do so there. I apologize for the imperious tone of "it will remain", and I admit my frustration because I can't fathom what the problem with this segment is as it meets all wiki-standards. Let me re-state my position without such bombast - as I believe this segment is completely within wiki-standards I intend to insure that it remains barring any proof that it violates those standards. As it is not a media generated controversy by the very definition of the word "controversy" ("a dispute where there is strong disagreement"  - I note no known source is questioning if SITE found this information)I intend to object vigorously to it being portrayed as Media generated controversy. As the article itself speaks of some of the chat rooms being occupied by known Al-qaeda supporters I intend to restore that quote fully.Wowaconia 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Elzmir you wrote at my talk page “Also, what a few whack jobs say on the internet is not the same as an official statement from BinLaden or Al-Sadr or whoever. Or do you think it is equivalent?” I address that here for the sake of other editors. I refer you to the line you chose to edit out of the segment that uses sourced quotes “One of these sites ‘Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network,’ where many ‘Al Qaeda communiques first appeared’.” So I fail to understand what you are trying to say. I am totally baffled by your continual vigorous opposition to this segment.Wowaconia 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To further illustrate my point the Gallup poll does not work for free are you saying everything they do is therefore suspect? For example "USA Today had the Gallup Poll organization conduct a survey of over 1,000 Americans and found that 22 percent of respondents wouldn't want Muslims as neighbors. That poll also found that 39 percent of respondents felt at least some prejudice against Muslims. The same percentage would favor requiring Muslims, including U.S. citizens, to carry special IDs to prevent attacks." Is USA Today lying when it reports this? Is the Gallup Poll just making it up? These people charge money for their services because they like shelter and food are you suggesting that their unreliable because of this?Wowaconia 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the section. Please before you revert it read it beacause I have only cleaned it up.  Please note the section in Wowaconia's verion had some direct (and I'm sure unintentional) plagarizaiton.  I have organized the text by making a list of the three comments that the participants in the chat rooms made about Ellison, then one remark on the election, and then a remark about one participants future plans based on the issue.  I have included Ellison's spokespersons comment as it was included in the Daily News piece.
 * I want to put the talk page comments in perspective since I am being attacked by Wowaconia on this issue.   The originial section on this topic was based on a televised Don Shelby editorial as the only ref.  I watched the editorial, in which Shelby said that they were talking about Ellison in these chat rooms and then editorialized heavily on Ellison.  As I recall, the original section was BASED ON Shelby's editorial but was written as though it was based on a hard news article.  It seemed inappropriate.
 * I hav reviewed the The Daily News article, in the version that is currently posted on their Web site, and have looked again at the SITE institute Web site. It is not clear from this piece that the Daily News comissioned the study.  The SITE institute does have many reports on their Web site but unfortuantely this report is not one of them.
 * On the issue of whether or not this is notable, I feel that if  Bin Laden or someone official from one of these organizations had gotten on TV or the Internet and slurred Ellison, that would have certainly been notable.  But if a few people on some chat rooms made some comments, is that notable?  I don't really think that it is.  People on some democratic chat rooms were writing in support of David Duke the other day after his CNN appearance.  Does that mean the the Democrats are pro-Duke?  Obviously it does not.  Is it fair to make conclusions about how "Bin Laden" feels about Ellsion because of a few random people on a site where these organizations participate said a few random things right after the election?  I honestly think that that is a complete stretch.
 * A few editors feel very strongly that some people on these websites slurring Ellison is some kind of a vindication of him and feel this is a very notable piece. I'm not arguing that it should be removed.  I just want to be on record as sayig this is not IMO notable.  Elizmr 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the title "SITE Monitoring"
 * If you review the UPI story at http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061113-020600-8489r it states (emphasis added):
 * "The attacks appeared on two password-protected Web sites monitored by the non-profit SITE Institute, which watches and translates Jihadi writings on the Web, according to the paper. One of the forums, al-Hesbah, is thought linked to al-Qaida." Oh & note that I was wrong when I thought they might be like the gallup poll and be a for profit organization, their non-profit which means they couldn't charge the New York Daily News anything under the 501(c) tax code.


 * On the question of notability
 * I'm sure if I found out that my name was being used in a jihadi chat room that would be a notable event. If one of my friends told me he was alerted by a organization that the 9-11 commision relied on that his name was being talked about in a jihadi chat room that I would think that it was notable. Are you saying it wouldn't be of note to you? We are at war with those people in that chat room, they'd be in jail or dead if the army could get their hands on them. The article doesn't make claims about how Bin Laden feels, and we're not just at war with Bin Laden but an entire terrorist network. Bin Laden could die tomorrow and that wouldn't end the war. The article at http://www.nydailynews.com/11-12-2006/news/story/470498p-396007c.html noted their direct affiliation "One chat room, called Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network…Many Al Qaeda communiques first appeared on the site.”" So if your "solidly tied to Al Qaeda" that means America wants to put a predator drone in your backyard and a tomhawk missle up your tailpipe. How can the people we are at war with mentioning his name not be notable enough to be in his article?Wowaconia 14:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd how the sentence that links the chat rooms with Al Qaeda is dropped in your edited version of the story Elizmr. Odd that this same phrase is the one you claim I plagarized despite my using quotation marks (which is the English standard to indicate your quoting someone else's work). And why did you, Elizmr, claim that the whole story was a plant by Ellison when you deleted it out all together at your edit tag of 23:06, 11 December 2006 "...probably a publicity thing set up by ellison himself. Really, Ellison and the media are in an unethical conspiracy Elizmr? You certainly do make bold statements.Wowaconia 14:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the above charge of plagiarism
In the above section entitled "site monitoring", Elizmr’s post of 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC) states “Please note the section in Wowaconia's version had some direct (and I'm sure unintentional) plagarizaiton.”
 * Elzmir your accusing me of plagiarism? Plagiarism is not just against wiki-standards its a crime Elzmir. Your accusing me of committing a crime. With this one I have to say - wow! Congratulations man that took balls to libel me like that, again wow. You got me saying wow now all the time – impressive dude. Really I had no idea you were going to crank it up that hard. Totally hardcore dude way to go on that. I’m not just critical of your edits I’m a friggin’ criminal. Forget the old WP:CVL, its a full frontal disregard of societies norms - total metal dude. I’m not just questioning if your edits improve the article, I'm in violation of (title 17, U. S. Code) Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act, I'm a criminal – again dude, totally balls out on that. I would’ve been worried I’d be banned from wikipedia for slander like that – but you, your telling the man where to go aren’t you? Your like the Hell’s Angels of Wikipedia man. Ain’t no code of norms going to slow you down, no sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagerism reads: “Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created oneself, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into his own work without attributing it.”

Lets look at the facts here’s the segment I wrote:


 * SITE's monitoring
 * The New York Daily News asked the SITE Institute, a terrorism investigative group that monitors “jihadi chat rooms” to see if Ellison was mentioned after his election victory. One of these sites “Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network,” where many “Al Qaeda communiques first appeared”. SITE reported that some “Jihadi pundits” call Ellison "the first Jewish Muslim that goes to Congress", others “have said his election was just ‘a comedy,’ and labeled him a ‘fool’ trying to ‘deceive us.’”[66] Another posting said “He is one of them, [a] one-way ticket to Hell”, while another said “My God, if you have 1 billion Muslims like him, we shall [continue to] fight you as the Muslim fights the infidel.”[66] Ellison’s “spokeswoman [Bridget Cusick] was not surprised by the negative comments in militant chat rooms. ‘Why would Al Qaeda embrace Keith's success? He's the opposite of what they're about.’”[66] This story was quoted extensively in an article by the global news agency United Press International.[67]

And now here’s the article minus all the attributed quotes:


 * SITE's monitoring
 * The New York Daily News asked the SITE Institute, a terrorism investigative group that monitors… to see if Ellison was mentioned after his election victory. One of these sites…where many…SITE reported that some…call Ellison…, others…and labeled him a…Another posting said…while another said…Ellison’s…This story was quoted extensively in an article by the global news agency United Press International.

You know Elzmir us criminals are pretty stupid so when you’re done cruising the net on the laptop built into your Harley Davidson could you point out where I violated the law here.?
 * Seriously, there is nothing unintentional about what I wrote and there is no plagiarism here either. Its obvious that you're either carelessly and recklessly stated that without knowing what the definition of “plagiarism” is or you did it in blatant disregard for the truth and civility. There is no plagerism here at all so you saying it was unintentional is like calling someone who hasn't even stepped into a store an unintentional shoplifter - it remains slander. Wowaconia 06:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, your rant above is uncalled for. Where are you getting this laptop, harley davidson, shoplifting stuff????  Both the Wikipedia article and the Daily News article it referenced used the phrase, "solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central".  That phrase was lifted directly from the Daily News. Elizmr 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hell’s Angels, laptop built into your Harley Davidson was an analogy that I’m not going to try and spell out. I think it would be clear to most readers, look up the Hells Angels if they're not familiar to you. You saying that I unintentional committed the crime of plagiarism is still saying I committed a crime by US law as the American legal system (where both I live and wikipedia is hosted and would therefor would have jurisdiction in this case) does not take into account whether I committed a crime intentional or did so unintentional out of ignorance, let me point you to a recent decision that restates that concept in the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision of Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States (04-368) The Fifth Circuit stated that “ignorance of the law is no defense”. So you saying I unintentional broke the law doesn’t matter in the United States because that’s no defense. As the phrase you cited was in quotations it in no way can be maintained that I was trying to present it as my own work and thereby committed plagarism. So you committed slander. Wowaconia 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In this realm saying I committed plagiarism is the largest insult possible as the wikipedia article states "Within academia, plagiarism is seen as academic dishonesty and is a serious and punishable academic offense." So not only is it technically a crime by US law, your statement is saying I'm either academically dishonest or at best careless. Do you really think that you would not be offended if I called you "academically dishonest" or "careless"? You headed your post on my talk page with a link to the wiki-policy against personal attacks. You think that I'm attacking you by taking umbrage that your asking readers to question if I'm academically dishonest or careless? --Wowaconia 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

cair section
I removed something about another group. It was already mentioned in another section. If someone wants to put it back, fine, but please change the heading to reflect the content. Elizmr 23:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

more on prager
this all seems to have more to do with prager than ellison or the us congress. prager created a non-issue and publicized it. for his photos, ellison was sworn in on a koran. he's a muslim. completely appropriate. officially, there's no rule about being sworn in on ANY holy book since we have separation of church and state in the US. can we PLEASE get rid of this section???? it is divisive and makes religion seem more an official part of US govt than it is. it is misleading. Elizmr 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I shortened this, but honestly everytime some yahoo in the media says soemthing outrageous regarding Ellison, are we going to put it in Wikipedia? Elizmr 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the sub-page "Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress" several Congressmen and Senators are weighing in on this issue. A paragraph here pointing to the sub-page is appropriate. There has not been any divisive movement on this page about this issue since the sub-page went in. Until your current actions. Your comments here should be addressed in the sub-page. Also your retitling the segment as "Media-generated controversies" is flat-out POV as if you read the sub-page you'll see Prager maintains that Ellison started this issue.Wowaconia 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to address your concerns I renamed "Media views on Ellison" to "Media personalities and Ellison" I think this informs the reader that these stories involve pundits which are seperate from newscasting. Still this info should remain as pundits have the ability to make news and in the Beck and Prager cases they did.Wowaconia 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Wow, I think your comments are just a tad inappropriate and overly personal.


 * 1)If there is a section on this issue here, it is fine to edit and refine it and talk about it. Please don't tell me to take it to a talk page.  It is not all that appropriate to boss people around on Wikipedia.
 * 2) Why are my edits "divisive"? That comment is a bit of an attack and not especially helpful.  Please try to spell out what you mean instead of using this kind of an attack adjective.
 * 3) I don't understand why "media generated controversies" is POV.  Someone made a big deal of the fact that Ellison wanted to be "sworn in on a Koran" (which is a non-issue in this nation anyway, because we have separation of church and state--for now anyway....).  Someone made a big deal out of it.  It wasn't Ellsion, was it?  Prager saying it was Ellison doesn't make it so.
 * 4) The new title is ok with me, but honestly I think we are giving these non-issues more play than they shoudl reasonably have it an enclyclopedia. Elizmr 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By its own definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers” when I wrote that there hasn’t been  “any divisive movement on this page about this issue since the sub-page went in. Until your current actions.” I was referring to the massive amount of wiki-user controversy displayed on this discussion page above under “Oath on the Quran” that disappeared once the information was put on a separate sub-page until you took issue with the paragraph that links to it. My point was that collaborative of wiki-users found the text acceptable and neutral despite their own strong opinions (in both directions) on the issue.
 * The reason why your re-titling “Media views on Ellison” to “Media-generated controversies” is "flat-out POV" is that Prager and his supporters maintain that Ellison, by announcing his intent to the media, was generating the issue; while Ellison and his supporters say he was just telling a reporter his intentions and that it only generated attention when Prager took issue with it. To call the segment “Media-generated controversies” is to lose neutrality (the wiki-standard) and side with Ellison, it would be just as POV as saying “Ellison’s media manipulation”. Your argument for your title, that “Prager saying it was Ellison doesn't make it so” could be seen by Prager supporters as you calling him a liar so that’s not neutral and is an unconvincing argument in light of the goal of NPOV. “Media personalities and Ellison” does not give support to either side and is therefore more appropriate while eliminating the idea that the Media mentioned are part of traditional journalism (as I noted in this thread previously).Wowaconia 21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to be POV, I am trying to eliminate a POV. YOu may be right.  Please go ahead and retitle the section (if you haven't do so already).  I think this is a non-issue, but I can see you think it is really really important.  Elizmr 01:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Controversies during 2006 election" segment should not be folded into a catch-all "Controversies" segment
As people see Ellison's association with CAIR as controversial everything he does with them will likly be noted, and post-election activities should be placed in their own segment seperate from pre-election ones to allow a better timeline of his activities.Wowaconia 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These controversies are not in any way defined by the 2006 election. I believe they all have to do with items of the public record that happened before the election.  By labeling them "2006 election" the implication is that they are over or were in some way election related.  Neither of these things is true.  Elizmr 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly instead of having the segment entitled “Life” mention this in a sentence and tell the reader to (see below) and there at "Controversies during 2006 election" give them the full story and its ramifications on the election, its use by his opposing candidates, the mentions made of it even by those endorsing him and it being one of many criticisms leveled at him that brought his character into question - one could splice the segment on Ellison’s life in half and put the information about his writings in a section about his attendance at the U of M law school, and then talk about his community advocacy and his marriage and his kids, and his service in the Minnesota House and his announcement to run, and then a mention to (see above) and then the parking tickets and late filings could be mentioned. I think that would break up the impact of what was happening at the 2006 election and the questions about Ellison the other candidates were trying to put forward. Also a strong argument for letting it remain in a "Controversies during 2006 election" segment is that this was the first time anyone took note of these writings and when he was pressed to respond to them. It was at this time that Ellison issued an apology for the remarks. It was fresh in the minds of those endorsing him who had to explain why they accepted his apology. It forced the voters to reflect on the issue and was fresh in their minds at the election. Placing all the information in a "Controversies during 2006 election" gives the reader of this article context of what was going on and gives maximum impact to words that probably few noticed at the time of their publishing and no one remembered until the 2006 election. Placing the segment in a catch-all “Controversies” segment implies that this is an ongoing controversy that could somehow effect Ellison. People can cite it in their opinions about Ellison but since the voters knew of it, reflected upon it, and elected him – unless new information arises it can not effect Ellison. If a member of the House was to call Ellison a member of the Nation of Islam even then it would read “Rep. Someone from Someplace, referring to Ellison’s past ties with the Nation of Islam (see above), called him ‘Louis Farrakhan’s representative to Congress.’” Its not an on-going controversy and is best placed in a timeline when the information had the most impact on Ellison and therefore should remain in the "Controversies during 2006 election" segment.Wowaconia 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Here's why.  I think a controversy "during the 2006 election" would be something like some kind of misconduct during the election itself (say one candidate made something up about another candidate and it was revealed).  Ellison's history with the Nation of Islam may have come OUT in the 2006 election, but started when Ellison was involved with that group.  He did this himself of his own free will.  The media did not concoct it.  His opponents did not concoct this.  Apologizing does not erase this.  Nor does his electoral win by a majority of voters.   Nor does a jewish organization or two endorsing him.  The article does not say that Ellison is a member of that organization currently.  Mark well, I think Ellison is a good guy and I don't think he is a racist against jews, but that does not mean that the "ends justify the means" and this history of his should be relegated to an "election controversy".  The parking tickets and late filings are not in the same league as supporting an organizaion and individuals that engage in hate speech.  Elizmr 23:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be deleted or that it was concocted by the media or his opponents. I'm not saying its been erased by an apology. I'm saying it belongs in the "Controversies during 2006 election" because thats when it made the biggest impact. If you can provide more sourced information on his college and law school activities that gave these ties more context than it could be moved to a segment that would start after the "Life" segment that would stop at the point he develops ties to the nation of Islam and then the new segment with the newly discovered context about why he supported the Nation of Islam would begin. I would say historically these writings had the biggest impact on Ellison at the time of the 2006 election and that's when they should be introduced in this article. His support of the Nation of Islam is seen by all as being in his past, the controversy about this past died after the election and is no longer an active controversy. Even the controversy with Prager has pretty much died down and after its probably mentioned a few times when Ellison's being sworn in, that issue will no longer be controversial. The definition of controversy is "a dispute where there is strong disagreement", so applying this to Ellison's ties with the Nation of Islam, there was disagreement whether his apology was real and acceptable or not. If you can find notable people who are currently saying his apology was not real or acceptable then the issue is still a controversy - otherwise there is no active controversy and all the details should be included in "Controversies during 2006 election". People will rightly continue to mention that he had ties but no one since the election is contending that Ellison broke those ties and made an acceptable apology. Newspapers will likely mention these ties but in the past tense, such as "Keith Ellison once wrote in support of the Nation of Islam" there is no controversy there as both Ellison and the media agree he had ties. No one of note is still contending his apology was unacceptable so the controversy is not ongoing, and the controversy (not the facts) died after the 2006 elections. Placing the information in the article about Ellison when it had the most effect on Ellison seems logical.Wowaconia 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I hear you, but I really disagre. This is not about the impact of Ellsion's past on Ellison's career. This has notting to do with the election. It has to do with Ellison. This is not some media pundit attacking Elllsion like the prager weirdness. These are choices me made in the past and felt really strongly about in the past. Elizmr 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the definition of controversy I placed in my last posting to this thread. If you can find a noted figure saying that his apology is a lie and you can claim its still a controversy and it can be placed in a segment titled such. I'm sorry but you not accepting his apology is not notable enough to call this a controversy. Not even Dennis Prager whose works you so vocally opposed stooped to saying that as a Jew he rejects Ellison's claim that this is in his past. I'm not saying Ellison's writing didn't happen, I'm not trying to bury it, I'm saying it was a controversy in 2006 and you can't have a controversy with no one on the other side. If wiki-standards were different I'd gladly post "though every politician and major political and religious group has accepted that Ellison's apology was heartfelt and true, a few obscure bloggers and a wikipedian named Elzmir are keeping the controvesy alive. On a talk-page Elzmir seemed to dismiss others who had accepted the apology, writing 'It is up to Ellison to go beyond promises and rhetoric and show by his actions that he doesn't support these past positions of his.' Ellison's only hope of convincing the entire planet seems thin, he will have to take solace in the fact that every notable on earth has accepted that his apology is real." If you can find some notable sources you might be convincing, otherwise I'm sorry. I would offer a change to your post above (my addition in brackets), "These are choices he made in the past and felt really strongly about in the past [And are part of a controversy that everyone else has consigned to the past]."Wowaconia 08:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not replying here since we have taken the discussion below. Elizmr 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

New page for Minnesota record
Shall we create a new page for the lengthy sections that have been created on his state senate record? Elizmr 12:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * never mind, I shortened this to bullet points and removed the rhetoric. If we need to include the rhetoric and politicing, let's make a new page.  This one was way too long.  Elizmr 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

reproduced from my user page: To enable a fuller discussion of moving this information into a sub-page I am going to revert your edits. I don't have a problem with it moving to a sub-page but even a small article linking to the sub-page should be a prose paragraph and not a bulleted list. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Bulleted_lists found at Manual of Style “Bulleted lists -Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted.”Wowaconia 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I took your edits and material and worked with it. I put a lot of time into this as you did.  I did not just revert you.  Please consider working in an iterative way instead of starting an edit war.  Elizmr 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Also, please see WP:OWN. Elizmr 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, I don't take issue with you thinking that the info was too long.I take issue that you radically condensed it without imput from anyone else. A paragraph of the old version I put on this talk page was seen by a third party as containing valuable information that your edit erased. I maintian that there is lots of information in the old version that is no longer in the article because of your edits. How is this valuable to the article? I also await your response to the point that this article is still rated a stub that needs expanding. I totaly agree that the sentance about why he was put on the Judiciary should've been cited as unsourced and looking like OR, so I thank you for pointing that out. If you would've just removed that line and called for a short summary pointing to a sub-page I would've agreed with you completely. But your edits wiped out reams of information without awaiting anyone elses opinion on its notability.Wowaconia 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, Wow, STOP accusing me of "wiping out reams of information"


 * everything is there in the article history
 * I didn't remove any references
 * I didn't remove any viewpoints or positions or achievements, I just condensed.
 * Furthermore, as I've said a few times above, I explained on the talk page. It was too heavy on the rhetoric and read like a campaign page.
 * Furthermore, I had a nice discussion with CSTAR about a particular point and we arrived at a verison #3 which I think was better than version #1 or version #2. So why not get past this and work on the article? Elizmr 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you repeat the same points without addressing what I'm saying. My issue is that you condensed lots of information because, all by yourself, you deemed that it was mere rhetoric. No one had a discussion with you about that. Your use of the references doesn’t replace the quotations that your edited out. I know me calling the process of you making things that were there go away - "deleting" or "erasing" offends you so I'll try to avoid those words in the future. There was lots of information there and after you, Elizmr without getting any input from anyone else edited the article these things were gone. If you can think of some even nicer way of saying this I'll use it, with the amount of times you say “OK, Wow, STOP”; “Hi Wow”; “Hey Wow” I worry that my comments might be affecting your constitution and temperament. It was not my intent to shock you so, I'm only trying to understand what your doing. The things that used to be there before that edit were lots of Ellison's quotations made from the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives. After the edit every single one was no longer there. These were quotes not from campaign literature as implied above but from the floor of the Legislature. They were Ellison's quotes and are not rhetoric about him from anyone else. No discussion about the merits of using the quotes or the length of the quotes was made, the quotes were just not there anymore, not even a single quote was left. These things were edited out without discussion. Elizmr you were only able to have a discussion with CSTAR when that person read the sample I had taken from the pre-edit history and posted it here so I fail to understand why it is not advisable for more then the three of us look at them all. I understand you don't want to be critiqued anymore on this and want me to "get past this and work on the article" but without understanding why your doing these things how can I work on the article if your just going to come by and obliterate days of work in "little under an hour" without any discussion first?Wowaconia 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was using "Wow" as a shorthand for your name, "Wowaconia". I was not exclaiming.  I've aplologized many times now for taking your stuff out, esp since you spent a long time on it.  This has happened to me on other pages.  I should not have done that to you.  OK?  But still, rhetoricis an accurate description of what was there; it consisted mostly of  quotes from Ellison during his time in state gov't. It did (I'm sorry) read like campaign literature.  An article is supposed to be more than a set of quotes.  When I invited you to get back to work on the article, I didn't intend for you to think I was saying "get over it".  What I meant was if you think there are especially notable quotes that should be added to this article or issues that the short summaries don't do justice to then bring them to talk.  OK?  Again, I apologize for undoing your work.  Elizmr 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota record
This section really reads like campaign promotional stuff. It has a lot of rhetoric from Ellison. It reads in an unencyclopedic way. I think we should focus on the results he accomplished rather than his rhetoric. Wow--you seem to be our local Ellison expert. What do you think about toning down the rhetoric here and making these focus a little more on achievement? Elizmr 13:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * here are some examples from the text of Rhetoric:

etc etc. Elizmr 14:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ellison said he felt he had a choice “of running for the Legislature or ‘sitting at home thinking about safe neighborhoods, community economic development, better schools and not doing anything about it. That’s the genesis of why I ran.” By Nov. 2002, *Ellison told an interviewer at the time of his election “We have a high degree of poverty and unemployment, as well as multi-million dollar deals negotiated in those buildings downtown. My challenge is how we come to some basic agreement on improving the quality of life for everyone.”
 * Rev. Al Gallmon, Pastor of Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church in North Minneapolis, and President of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP hailed Ellison’s victory “His heart is in the community, without a shadow of a doubt. He is truly an advocate for children." Ellison dismissed the idea that the legislative goals of Minnesota’s major cities were competing with those of the suburbs saying “Brooklyn Center has a lot in common with north Minneapolis. It’s not a matter of the poor cities and the rich suburbs any longer. Not all suburbs are created equal.”
 * Ellison said he was looking forward to working with the Republican majority “Republicans are the opposition, not the enemy. There’s a big difference. We all want safe communities. How do we get there? We agree that the economy should be strong for everyone but we disagree on the methodology.”

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog. His work in Minnesota and quotes from him about his work are the only way to understand what he's done and what he stands for. If one reads this article the amount of information they’d have is encyclopedic. What is the most notable thing that Ellison has done till now – he won the election yes, but he would not have won if he did not have an electoral history and a voting record. Elizmr your reducing everything to bulleted lists is a bad writing by wiki-standards especially because your doing it to information you haven’t posted. Bulleted lists makes downplays his history and reduces him to identity politics. He did not come out of nowhere. With a history people can judge him as a politician, the article is titled – Keith Ellison (politician). Ellison hasn’t done anything in DC yet so this is his only political/legislative record. When he’s done something notable in DC we can make this information sub-pages then. All of this information comes from the Minnesota House of Representatives own newspaper and is not from his campaign webstie as (Elizmr claims) look at the references. Ellison has been in politics since 2002 his 2006 run is only a tiny aspect of that, reducing the information on the majority of his political career to tiny sentences seems like POV because it gives undue weight to the controversies surrounding his 2006 election which would be of no interest to anyone if he wasn’t running for election and he wouldn’t have been a serious candidate without his service in the Minnesota house so the reductions which make the Nation of Islam ties the largest thing in this article seem like POV – sensationalism (as per wiki-standards). Please review Neutral point of view. The Nation of Islam info absolutely must stay (though someone should wikify that into prose paragraphs), but so too must his Minnesota history stay. Its all well sourced and documented with links to live pages – all up to every wiki-standard. It can all move to sub-pages AFTER Ellison has a Federal legislative record right now this is his only legislative record. A bulleted list is fine for listing cultural references made in a South Park episode but they tend to be seen as listing trivia. Ellison’s Minnesota legislative record his only legislative record to this point should not be placed in a format seen by the reader as trivial.
 * It is unreasonable to maintain that
 * “During the session, Ellison advocated the following: .. ..*opposed a bill proving that, "marriage or its legal equivalent is limited to only the union of one man and one woman”
 * is more encyclopedic than
 * “When in late 2004 a bill calling for the Minnesota State Constitution to be amended to “provide that marriage or its legal equivalent is limited to only the union of one man and one woman” was introduced, it was opposed by Ellison. The bill had been brought to the House by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg (R-Lakeville), who sponsored the measure with then State Sen. Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater). They held that the 1997 Minnesota "Marriage Protection Act" defining marriage as a "civil contract between a man and a woman" could be ruled unconstitutional as had occurred in the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case in Massachusetts. Ellison opposed the bill “Citing a 1958 case {Loving v. Virginia} in which a black man and his white wife were arrested and sentenced to jail for being married to one another…the U.S. Supreme Court later issued a ruling, declaring interference with a person’s right to choose his or her partner to be unconstitutional.” Rep. Karen Clark siding with Ellison stated that “civil marriage should be kept separate from religious marriage. One is about rights and responsibilities and the other is about a sacred contract.” Ellison and the other opponents of the bill failed and it passed the House, but it never received a vote in the State Senate.”Wowaconia 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, please calm down. I didn't say that the Missesota stuff should not be there, did I? I said it was too long, too loaded with rhetoric, and spent the better part of an hour trying to improve the article. If I made factual errors about his stand on gay marriage/civil union then pelase correct them. I wasn't exactly clear on what his position is from the text and may have distorted something but I can assure you that it was not intentional. I want the article to be NPOV and factually correct. I just don't think it should read like campaign literature, do you? Elizmr 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I looked at this. There's a discussion about who brought the bill to the floor, which (with all due respect) has nothing to do with Ellison.  There are Ellsion's  citing of the Mass case and arguments made theirin, which (with all due respect) are not original to Ellison.  How can we fix this?   Can we say that Ellison compared not allowing gay people to marry or have civil unions to antiquated laws not allowing Blacks to marry Whites in the US?  I want a way to say it that is more transparent to the reader for readability and think, yes, that this is encyclopedic.  On the other hand, I am in no way intending to hurt your feelings.  If I seemed to put down the work you did on the article I apologize.  I saw the really long section and the rhetoric and freaked out :-) Elizmr 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't get the "south park" reference. I wans't meaning to reduce his record to comedy. What do you mean by that?  Elizmr 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about putting some of it in footnotes? --CSTAR 20:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems: 1)there is still a lot of rhetoric here which seems kind of inappropriate for Wikipedia--the page read like a campaign page with quotes from speeches 2)it is logistically VERY difficult to edit when there's so much material in the notes

Also, please mark well, I share many of Ellison's views politically. I just don't think we should be turning the page into the Ellison blog. Elizmr 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but I think this is informative and merits inclusion somewhere:


 * Ellison opposed the bill “Citing a 1958 case {Loving v. Virginia} in which a black man and his white wife were arrested and sentenced to jail for being married to one another…the U.S. Supreme Court later issued a ruling, declaring interference with a person’s right to choose his or her partner to be unconstitutional.”


 * --CSTAR 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a commonly cited thing in the Mass controversy and not an orig insight on Ellison's part, however. That is why I took it out.  It has less to do with Ellison personally than the MA case.  (ie--he wasn't the first one to say it).  Elizmr 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point. How about "Ellison opposed the bill citing {Loving v. Virginia} used in MA court decision" (or some such thing).--CSTAR 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * sounds good to me. Do you want to do it or should I?  Elizmr 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead...--CSTAR 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Elizmr 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What Encyclopedia uses bulleted lists? I mentioned South Park because those articles in Wikipedia do use bulleted lists, but even this is frowned upon by many wiki-editors as being a method to convey mere trivia. So Elizmr's reduction of the section to a bulleted list and not paragraphs will cause many readers to associate it with mere trivia. Also How is quoting Keith Ellison from news stories on an entry about Keith Ellison make this a blog? What part of this segment was seen as interjected POV? Ellison not being original is not a critique of the article its a critique of Ellison which you were only able to make after learning the information you then decided to delete. Him citing case law while he's on the Judiciary board lets the reader see how he operates in a Legislature. Elizmr radically condensed all of the material in this segment without even awaiting anyone else’s comments on whether this segment should be turned it a sub-page. The whole Ellison article is still rated a stub as per above, so I fail to understand why tearing out information helps that situation.Wowaconia 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wowanconia:

Please slow down. Please stop assuming bad faith on my part, OK? I recoginze that your edits were an attempt to improve the article and I've said so above. Please give me the same consideration.
 * I still don't understand the South Park comment. Is there an article on the TV cartoon that uses bullets? Do they use bullets on the TV cartoon?  PLease explain.
 * Please note, I do NOT think that the bulleted list trivilaizes anything. I find the bulleted list a better and more easily digested summary than what was there before, which I found to be very heavy on the rhetoric with Ellison's views and accomplishments and slogans all running into each other. I made an attempt to sort that out.
 * There was also some original research in it and I've noted those places in my edit sumaries.  In one instance, the text said that Ellison was chosen for a particular committee because of his expertise.  There was no cite.  That is OR.  It makes sense that someone would be appointed to a given committee based on expertise, but sadly this is not always true in our government.
 * Why don't we discuss the points you feel should be elucidated further as CSTAR and I did (civily) about the gay marriage thing and hopefully come to a better version than the first two.
 * And by all means make a page on Ellison's record in his home state. Elizmr 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are bad writing as per wiki-standards I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Bulleted_lists found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style “Bulleted lists -Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted.” I mention the American Cartoon "South Park" because the wiki-articles about its episodes often have bulleted lists and such lists are seen as kruft and trivia by many wiki-editors, so your editing paragraphs into a bulleted list leads such readers to see this information as trivia. The rhetoric used in the segment was Ellison's own rhetoric. I would gladly discuss why I think the inclusion of Ellison's political positions as articulated by Ellison would merit being in an article about him, but you condensed it all into throw away sentences before allowing anyone to discuss the matter. If you took issue with the one sentence that explained why he was on the Judiciary Board as OR why not change that sentence instead of altering paragraph after paragraph that were all well sourced. I don't have a problem saying the MN segment could have been reworked for clarity (since the reader might hold that things were running into each other) but reducing paragraphs into sentences in a bullet list is neither encyclopedic or good writing as per the wiki-standard cited above.Wowaconia 23:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for callig my hard work "bad writing". Again I refer you to WP:CIVIL, which, unlike the bullet point thing is a CENTRAL policy on Wikipedia.  Elizmr 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I call it bad writing because it violates the wiki-standards (as noted above). Surely your not saying that writing that violates standards is somehow "good writing". Just like without a spell checker I am a "bad speller" this doesn't imply a flaw of character but a problem following spelling standards. I am not saying you have a bad character, I'm asking you to make your writing more valuable for your readers.Wowaconia 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying just as you are. Please work positively and stop attacking my writing, etc and work positvely on the article to improve it.  Elizmr 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, I'm asking you to follow the standards to work together for a better article that our readers can gain by reading.Wowaconia 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am thinking about the standards in a larger sense than narrowly focusing on the bullet point issue. This was just a way of sorting through a lot of material which wasn't thematically organized in a way I could discern (I'm sorry) read like campaign literature (as I've said above).  Please consider ALL the standards rather than perseverating narrowly on the bullet point issue.  Elizmr 01:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I keep bringing up the bulleted list because anything less would've meant full and wholesale deletion instead of massive and radical reductions. I'm saying the information is worthy of better than snipets on a bullet list. To further my point I'm pointing to the standards that condemn the use of bullet lists instead of paragraphs - so its not just my opinion that what you did was in error it is the Wikipedia organization's opinion. If you would've said the segment was too long and should be put on a sub-page I would've amiably agreed and we could discuss how long the segment pointing to the sub-page should be and what was important to go in that segment. I'm not adverse to listening to consensus as if you look at the Alexander's Allegations thread above you'll see that even though by standards I, as you Elizmr pointed out at the time was in the right, decided that it was not worth fighting for. I'm not under some delusion that I own this page. What I am is convinced that your edits were too drastic and the info that's left is in an unnacceptable bullet-list format.Wowaconia 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets review the tiny bit of information Elzmir reposted at the beginning of this thread and I'll explain why I thought it notable. Original quotes in brown.
 * Ellison said he felt he had a choice “of running for the Legislature or ‘sitting at home thinking about safe neighborhoods, community economic development, better schools and not doing anything about it. That’s the genesis of why I ran.”
 * This gives his motivation for entering into public service at all, and specificly for the position covered in this segment.
 * By Nov. 2002, *Ellison told an interviewer at the time of his election “We have a high degree of poverty and unemployment, as well as multi-million dollar deals negotiated in those buildings downtown. My challenge is how we come to some basic agreement on improving the quality of life for everyone.”
 * Not only does this reveal his background and the challenges he took up in the term covered in this segment. This reveals his goals for the term and the reader can consider if his goals now are still consistent.
 * Rev. Al Gallmon, Pastor of Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church in North Minneapolis, and President of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP hailed Ellison’s victory “His heart is in the community, without a shadow of a doubt. He is truly an advocate for children."
 * Not only is this a Christian leader expressing his first hand knowledge of working with Ellison in the community despite faith differences, this is the head of the local NAACP endorsing him since day one.
 * Ellison dismissed the idea that the legislative goals of Minnesota’s major cities were competing with those of the suburbs saying “Brooklyn Center has a lot in common with north Minneapolis. It’s not a matter of the poor cities and the rich suburbs any longer. Not all suburbs are created equal.”
 * This shows that early on Ellison said he wanted to work for consensus, the reader is free to decide if he acheived that goal or to look to see if this is still his goal.
 * Ellison said he was looking forward to working with the Republican majority “Republicans are the opposition, not the enemy. There’s a big difference. We all want safe communities. How do we get there? We agree that the economy should be strong for everyone but we disagree on the methodology.”
 * In the very partisan MN House, Ellison said he wanted to reach across the aisle. The reader can decide if he succeeded and if he will try to maintain a similar goal in DC.

These were all direct quotes of Ellison and I invite you to point out any POV I inserted into any of this.
 * Elzmir redacted this information saying "It has a lot of rhetoric from Ellison. It reads in an unencyclopedic way." By wiki-standards replacing this with a bullet list is a step in the wrong direction if you want encyclopedic.

Elzmir defended his edits saying "I think we should focus on the results he accomplished rather than his rhetoric." Well if one reads the intro "Taking his seat in 2003 Ellison was one of 13 newly elected Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party members out of a total of 43 new members to Minnesota’s 134 seat State House of Representatives. Ellison's election took place when his party became the smallest House minority in Minnesota history. This was because with the 2002 elections “the House Republican majority's advantage swelled from eight seats to 20 - the largest since party labels have been in use.” One would see that Ellison is part of the smallest minority in the MN House in History so his acheivments depend on working across the aisle. A point Elzmir redacted out. How many achievments are there if he failed to get bipartisan support? I mentioned the ones I could find alongside his attempts: authoring bills, speaking out, ect. Instead of finding sources mentioning achievements I missed, Elzmir just radically redacted most of the information.
 * I'd also like to respond to the charge that this is just "rhetoric", I don't understand what Elzmir is alleging. One definition of Rhetoric is "loud and confused and empty talk", none of this is that. Another definition is "using language effectively to please or persuade" to say that Ellison didn't really mean what he said and is merely trying to please is OR and probably POV, to say he's trying to persuade his fellow legislatures would seem a good reason to include his statements not redact them to nothing. The final definition is "high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation" if you take issue with his style that has nothing to do with the fact that he said these things. This info wasn't from some campaign promises that can be undone its from history that is permanent.Wowaconia 06:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include all this detailed information about his legislative record here? Wouldn't it make more sense to provide a link to an appropriate source? --CSTAR 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I quoted the above information in this thread to be illustrative to my points in the above post. Since then I collected all the information and placed it on a sub-page which can be linked to from this Ellison article. I invite anyone to critique it if they so choose.Wowaconia 00:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
I am tagging the article POV as I have been unable to resolve some content problems on the article with Wowanconia.
 * WOW has insisted on labeling history of Ellison's going back to the late 1980 as a "CONTROVERSY OF THE 2006 ELECTION". I have argued that these issues predate the election and are not election conversies per say (as would be getting on a ballot illegally, lying about an opponent or some such thing).  Labeling somehting as a controvery of the election, and one that is OVER, trivializes it and gives the reader the impression that it is irrelevant now.   I am tagging this POV because it is not a neutral way of presenting the issue.
 * Comment Well how about labeling the section Past controversies and mentioning that they aqcuired national prominence in the 206 election.--CSTAR 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely ok with that. ELLISON acquired national prominence in the 2006 election since that was the first time he ran for public office.  "Past" introduces bias  Elizmr 23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree; if I understand this correctly the controversy was for an activity that occurred in the past. Now I suppose one could argue that "once a controversy always a controversy" so that "past" is never a suitable description, but I think that description would be misleading. In any case, I rarely like to argue over section names.--CSTAR 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like to argue either, but is there really something wrong with labeling this a controversy? Please look at the facts here.  Ellison has a ten year record of defending the kind of hate speech the NOI engages in from the late 1980's to 1997.  He has a several month record of apologizing for his actions.  I'm not sure we should be sweeping this kind of stuff under the rug with the heading "past". Elizmr 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WOW has insisted on listing a daily news-requested monitoring by the SITE institute as "SITE INSTITUTE montitoring". This implies that the "investigation" was instigated by the institute.  This is not the case.  The section heading is misleading and POV.  Elizmr 21:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see why with some rewording, this couldn't be included.--CSTAR 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The text of the section is not the issue (at least not the last time I looked at it, which was Friday). It is the misleading heading that Wow is insisting on that is the issue.  The heading implies that SITE did this of their own accord, when the "study" was comissioned by the Daily News and published by the Daily News.  Elizmr 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have an alternative heading in mind?--CSTAR 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, "Comments on Ellision from Jihadist chat rooms". Elizmr 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, details about his advocacy work have been taken out the the lead. Why? This is an important part of who he has been politically since law school and continues to be an important part of his work?  Why was it removed without any discussion?  Elizmr 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, it's perfectly legitimate to include this and frankly don't see why this would be a problem.--CSTAR 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was deleted. Elizmr 23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 I would like the reader to note that the comments of CSTAR in this thread began to be posted above interweaved with Elzmir comments beginning at 23:14 16 December 2006. My response that were once below Elzmir’s response and are now below this box were posted before that at 23:05, 16 December 2006. So while it may appear that I just ignored the conversation CSTAR and Elzmir had, in actuality those comments were not there when I posted my response and CSTAR post makes no mention of them. While this is perhaps not a violation of the letter of Wikipedia:Etiquette that states:
 * “Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.”
 * I do think its a violation of the spirit of that standard.
 * In response to an old post by Elzmir that said “Also, details about his advocacy work have been taken out the the lead. Why?” The CSTAR “23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)” post said “I agree, it's perfectly legitimate to include this and frankly don't see why this would be a problem.”

I fail to understand how it was appropriate to place a comment there instead of after my post that was already on the page at 23:05 that address that subject saying “I specifically remember looking at your [Elzmir’s] edit that said “Since law school, Ellison has been active in advocacy with Islamic groups” and thinking wow that’s total OR there’s no one even claiming he was involved with Islamic groups between 1998 and his 2006 association with CAIR” If CSTAR thinks the inclusion of this is “perfectly legitimate” why not discuss with me why its not Original research instead of ignoring my post?
 * Again my main point being I didn’t ignore CSTAR and Elzmir’s postings, CSTAR ignored mine and Elzmir (who is not at fault) just responded to CSTAR’s questionable placement. --Wowaconia 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No Elzmir, we discussed it, remember when I posted my concerns that you were motivated by POV on your talk page and not here out of courtesy to you. Since now you claim I’m against NPOV I’ll post them here so other editors can judge. These comments posted by me Wowaconia to Elizmr talk-page on 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC) “[Elizmr] My difficulty with your edits stem from the fact that you have continually had problems with the "SITE monitoring" segment that documents an anti-Ellison reaction to his election by terrorist sympathizers. I also thought that with Ellison having a four year history in Minnesota politics that this history should be a large part of an entry about him. Before I started finding that info the largest section was the controversy about his ties to the Nation of Islam. While I agree those ties must always remain in the article, your edits and your want to place those ties into a "Controversy" segment instead of "Controversies in the 2006 election" seem to imply that you want the reader to see this as the main point about Ellison. I sought to expand the readers understanding of Ellison by going in depth about his political activities. When you condensed this information it appeared that you were doing so out of an agenda to make the main thing that readers take away from the entry is his past ties with the Nation of Islam. I contend that editing out Ellison's comments is the same as deleting them, and that they gave the reader a better understanding of what he stands for. I fear your edits remove facts about what he stands for and leaves only a focus on what he is - a Muslim. They seem to downplay his civic service, call into question stories about Jihadist renouncing him, and put a huge focus on his past ties to a militant Islamic group. Reading your response on the talk page I know his past ties inflame your passions but we here in district 58B know he is not some cartoon. He is a complex individual, not a perfect one. I am seeking only to let the reader understand some of that complexity. Wikipedia has long been defamed for having longer articles about a Simpson's episode than about any elected leader, trying to change that was why I wasn't concerned with length of the text. Nor had the browser given any warning that it was too long and it was still rated a stub. I feel that bulleted lists encourage a quick scan and do not encourage reflection. To use an analogy when one bullet at a time is shot at you, you notice every one - when a hail of them come at you, you only notice when they start and when they stop. Mr. Ellison has many political positions that Conservatives think are misguided and Liberals applaud - letting the reader discover from the record of a Legislative body what his positions are by his own words seems undeniable valuable to understanding this complex man.”
 * I am not swayed that he does not wish to make the main focus in this article about Ellison’s past ties to the NOI in violation of WP:NPOV undue weight criteria found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight . He radically redacted all of Ellison’s first two year term into bullet points. Though this issue is somewhat resolved by my consigning that information to a sub-page, I feel the reasoning behind his actions are those spelled out in the talk-page entry reprinted above. I feel he was afraid that if the reader saw Ellison’s legislative failures and successes they would not see his past ties with the Nation of Islam with such an impact. Here is the part of his reply germane to the issue at hand (emphasis added)
 * To which Elizmr replied on my talk-page on 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC), “On the NOI stuff, honestly, Wowanconia, it is just NOT a 2006 event. The chronology doesn't support this. The apology took place in the context of the campaign, but the stuff he was apologizing for took place as far back as the 1980s. I didn't make up the remarks supporting the NOI, Ellison did. Period. I wish he hadn't. It doesn't have to be a focus of the article, but it isn't fair to bury it either. It is up to Ellison to go beyond promises and rhetoric and show by his actions that he doesn't support these past positions of his.”
 * My reply to his talk page posted on Wowaconia 07:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC) said “Ellison wrote these things and no one is contending that it was anyone but him. So where do they go in the article is the only question. Find info on Ellison in college or lawschool dabbling in the NOI and it can be moved there for chronologies sake. Find a noted figure saying that his apology is a lie and you can claim its still a controversy and it can be placed in a segment titled such. I'm sorry but you not accepting his apology is not notable enough to call this a controversy. Not even Dennis Prager whose works you so vocally opposed stooped to saying that as a Jew he rejects Ellison's claim that this is in his past. I'm not saying Ellison's writing didn't happen, I'm not trying to bury it, I'm saying it was a controversy in 2006 and you can't have a controversy with no one on the other side. If wiki-standards were different I'd gladly post "though every politician and major political and religious group has accepted that Ellison's apology was heartfelt and true, a few obscure bloggers and a wikipedian named Elzmir are keeping the controvesy alive. On a talk-page Elzmir seemed to dismiss others who had accepted the apology, writing 'It is up to Ellison to go beyond promises and rhetoric and show by his actions that he doesn't support these past positions of his.' Ellison's only hope of convincing the entire planet seems thin, he will have to take solace in the fact that every notable on earth has accepted that his apology is real." If you can find some notable sources you might be convincing, otherwise I'm sorry. I will here (not in the real posting)  reprint your 01:15, 16 December 2006 post on the Ellison talk-page with my addition in brackets, "These are choices he made in the past and felt really strongly about in the past [And are part of a controversy that everyone else has consigned to the past]." Thus they should be placed in the "Controversies during 2006 election" segment.” [Note- this information was largely reprinted above on this talk page under The "Controversies during 2006 election" segment should not be folded into a catch-all "Controversies" segment.]

So no by all means we talked about your edits it and it seems you are intent to show the world that Ellison has so far failed to “go beyond promises and rhetoric and show by his actions that he doesn't support these past positions of his.” I believe this to be an agenda and not NPOV. Let us continue to behave with decorum and seek mediation.--Wowaconia 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history page you’ll see that I went through it and found that you had made edits to some of the article that we hadn’t discussed and so when I reverted the page, I pasted that information backing in while noting on the history tag that it was your work. I specifically remember looking at your edit that said “Since law school, Ellison has been active in advocacy with Islamic groups” and thinking wow that’s total OR there’s no one even claiming he was involved with Islamic groups between 1998 and his 2006 association with CAIR if he found something (like perhaps such groups supporting his MN elections which no one else has found) why didn’t he cite it. I concluded that this was unsourced OR to promote a POV agenda to deny Ellison who during law school (not since law school) had ties with the Nation of Islam. So I did not paste it back in because it fails to meet wiki-standards. By the way now that I look at that section the 1998 claim is massively suspect as there is no other source that says he ran for office before 2002 and there is no webpage link for the source listed. So really that should probably be removed unless it can be verified somehow. I also notice a lot of the sources in that segment are from "Keith Ellison for dummies" whose nature is seen in their url (emphasis added) http://powerlineblog.com/archives/EllisonArticle3.php. So most of the information in this segment is deeply suspect by wiki-standards. So yes “details about his advocacy work have been taken out the lead” because they failed to meet wiki-standards.Wowaconia 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies to above:
 * If you had problem with the sentence in the lead, you could have changed the wording rather than reverting it. Or you could have discussed on talk.  Your point is reasonable.  I tried hard to come up with a sentence that would be a good summary and NPOV, but clearly I didn't hit the mark since you have such strong objections.  We can work on this, but I take STRONG exception to your removal of sourced relevant content.  NOTE: here is the sentence as it appeared the the article: Since law school, Ellison has been active in advocacy with Islamic groups, and since being elected to Congress, he has beocme more active on a national level    . The first clause was not referenced, since it is discussed in the text and introductory in nature.  Elizmr 00:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The NOI section was bulletized by another editor a long time ago. I unbulletized it in reponse to your particular aversion to bulleting.  I went chronologically and took out some material that was directly redundant.  I did not remove any references.  I used the edit summary to describe my edits.  Is any of this problematic to you?  Elizmr 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not claim that Wowaconia was opposed to WP:NPOV. I consider comment to be a STRONG personal attack.  Elizmr 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wowaconia wrote above that he removed material from the lead becuase cites they were from the powerline blog. Here are the refs:    .  WowaconiaPlease identify the ones which are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.  Elizmr 00:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wowaconia has written, "it seems you are intent to show the world that Ellison has so far failed to “go beyond promises and rhetoric and show by his actions that he doesn't support these past positions of his.” I believe this to be an agenda and not NPOV". Wowaconia has made another personal attack which is IN NO WAY bourne out by my edit history on the article.  Elizmr 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how I can make myself more clear to you. I made sure your edits on the Nation of Islam section that we had not discussed were in this version. In one of your comments above that starts "The NOI section was bulletized by another editor a long time ago..." You seem to think I did something to that segment but all I did was make sure your information was included in the current version look at these tags in the history section.
 * 09:09, 16 December 2006 Wowaconia (Talk | contribs) (revert to pre-Elzmir edits to retrieve info for subpage, to restore SITE and other info (as per dis) **note Elzmir made changes to NOI section that were not part of dis and I'll paste that back in
 * 09:11, 16 December 2006 Wowaconia (Talk | contribs) (→Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties - pasted back in Elzmir's edits to this segment that we did not discuss)Wowaconia 02:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You never addressed my concerns that you were not editing to give undue weight to the Nation of Islam ties despite plenty of time to do so. You never seek sources that would argue for your position that these ties are still part of an ongoing controversy you just continue to assert it without any notable sources at all. I quoted you to illustrate to other editors what I think is going on because all I get from you is nothing at all. It seems that most of what I say offends you and is immediately a personal attack. I don't write things like "Oh wow, oh wow, I can't believe you claimed in your edit tag called "21:01, 16 December 2006 Elzmir" that my “reasoning is not logical” How dare you sir imply that I am not of sound mind surely we must meet on the dueling grounds for such a grave insult to my mental capabilities. The whole honor of my clan has been besmirched. What a viscous POV attack on my gentle nature", nor do I say "Whoa, whoa, slow down, take a breath there Elzimr - whoa gosh wow, I... gees, I just never thought, wow, just calm down there Elzimr your  "21:05, 16 December 2006 Elzmir"  edit tag saying that “you are stonewalling” is just, wow, out of the blue man. Gosh, I don't know why you would say, gees, wow. Let me link you to WP:CIVIL gosh, wow, "stonewalling" of all the..Harsh." I'm ignoring most of that verbiage because the substance of what you are trying to say is what I'm focusing on. So please show me the same courtesy, and if your using WOW because you don’t want to spell out Wowaconia stop, because it makes me think your getting extremely excited, please just copy and paste the full name.Wowaconia 02:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the above post of 00:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Elzmir says "I did not claim that Wowaconia was opposed to WP:NPOV.  I consider comment to be a STRONG personal attack." Really because I didn’t get that from the tag you put on this edit which was posted long before your announcement of another "STRONG personal attack" on my part, "21:05, 16 December 2006 Elzmir (Talk | contribs) (WOW, you are stonewalling and have created a POV version I am tagging it POV)". I fail to understand how you maintain that I can both create "a POV version" and yet I am attacking you by making the suggestion that you think I am "opposed to WP:NPOV and are therefor likely to make POV versions of things. I do not understand you Elzmir.Wowaconia 02:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the sentence you put in that I deleted "Since law school, Ellison has been active in advocacy with Islamic groups, and since being elected to Congress, he has become more active on a national level" followed by these references
 * http://www.imamsofamerica.com/NAIF2006.pdf North American Imams Federation conference booklet
 * http://www.imamsofamerica.com/ North American Imams Federation Web site
 * http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/21/national/main2202120.shtml 6 Muslim Imams Removed From Plane
 * http://www.startribune.com/587/story/833707.html Ellison seeks meeting on removal of clerics

My point is that you made a statement of unsourced original research by asserting that "Since law school, Ellison has been active in advocacy with Islamic groups" none of these sources make any claims of him being part of Islamic groups since law school, out of courtesy to you I looked at them all again, and my memory of when I was the first one to find and post these sources proved correct and there is no such mention. Be assured that the sources are still in the article they're by the segment referring people to the Flying Imams sub-page that I noticed you did a lot of work on (informative page). I put the sources here to give a small amount of info and hopefully just enough for the reader to want to get more and go to the sub-page.
 * When I knowingly deleted your sentence it was because you had no sources claiming any activity pre-2006 and a person could not back up your statement even if one were to look at the Nation of Islam segment because the information there only claimed activity before 1998, so there's a huge gap between 1998 and 2006. So in accord with wiki-standards I erased your statement, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Biographies_of_living_persons
 * Emphasis added "Biographical claims about living people need special care because of the effect they could have on someone's life, and because they could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page."

My point on blogs being that even the claims in the Nation of Islam segment are suspect because at lot of it is from blogs and by wiki-standards this is a problem. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#SELF
 * Emphasis added "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Some of the links appear to be pictures of snipped out articles but the ones I looked at didn't even contain any bibliographic info in the picture - they were cut out like a coupon so there's no way to determine date or publisher. It would be nice to see a newspaper logo to address some fears that there real articles. While I would prefer them to be real (as it would nice to be able to read the articles online rather than dig through libraries), by wiki-standards they're totally unusable. See the Biographies of living persons standards I posted above. I'm not advocating any action for this segment at this time. But someone else would be in the right if they came and just stripped out most of that section. I hope to go down to the library and get the papers directly or on microfilm and review the info from there someday. But I tend to go chronologically over a bio article and I'm not even done with the 83rd Session yet. So could wikipedia get sued by Ellison for claiming he was the Nation of Islam's candidate in 1998 probably - there's no other source then a reference without a link and no newspaper on earth has mentioned he ran anytime before 2002. So this is why I mention the blog information even its unreliable sources do not make the claims that you did in that sentence I erased - your claim that Ellsion has been involved with Muslim groups since law school is supported by nothing. The source you copied from where I originally put them are still part of the article but without your sentence there is no point in them being in the header. The fact that in the table of Contents there's a topic listed as "Advocacy for Islamic causes" listed with its two main segments "Council on American-Islamic Relations" and "North American Imams Federation" allows the reader to jump directly to those sections without even having to page down. As these segments are all placed chronologically because they deal with his post-election advocacy that’s why they follow the election segment.Wowaconia 02:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, please see discussion below. The lead is supposed to SUMMARIZE the article.  I wrote the sentence about the advocacy for muslim groups since law school  based on the NOI stuff.  I discussed above (CSTAR joined disc too) and he also didn't have a problem with some mention of the advocacy ebing there.  I have now taken the first clause out based on your arguments.  Elizmr 04:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

NOI involvement: How should the section be labeled: controversy of 2006 election vs. controversy?
(note: these are remarks wowanconia put on my talk. As they are relevant to the discussion here, I've placed them here.  I've refactored to remove color coding and to sort out Wowanconia's points so I could better understand them.  Please see my talk page for the full version)
 * Elizmr wrote: "On the NOI stuff, honestly, Wowanconia, it is just NOT a 2006 event. The chronology doesn't support this. The apology took place in the context of the campaign, but the stuff he was apologizing for took place as far back as the 1980s. I didn't make up the remarks supporting the NOI, Ellison did. Period. I wish he hadn't".


 * Wow replied with the following points:
 * On whether the NOI stuff belongs in the article: Ellison wrote these things and no one is contending that it was anyone but him. I'm not saying Ellison's writing didn't happen, I'm not trying to bury it,
 * On how the section they appear in should be labeled: "where do they go in the article is the only question... I'm saying it was a controversy in 2006...These are choices he made in the past and felt really strongly about in the past [And are part of a controversy that everyone else has consigned to the past]." Thus they should be placed in the "Controversies during 2006 election" segment....
 * you can't have a controversy with no one on the other side
 * Discussion of Ellison's apology and how this affects the section the material should be in"Find a noted figure saying that his apology is a lie and you can claim its still a controversy and it can be placed in a segment titled such...If wiki-standards were different I'd gladly post "though every politician and major political and religious group has accepted that Ellison's apology was heartfelt and true...Ellison's only hope of convincing the entire planet seems thin, he will have to take solace in the fact that every notable on earth has accepted that his apology is real
 * Requirement for chronologic presentation of this material "Find info on Ellison in college or lawschool dabbling in the NOI and it can be moved there for chronologies sake"
 * Personal comments to Elizmr: I'm sorry but you not accepting his apology is not notable enough to call this a controversy......a few obscure bloggers and a wikipedian named Elzmir are keeping the controvesy alive...On a talk-page Elzmir seemed to dismiss others who had accepted the apology, writing 'It is up to Ellison to go beyond promises and rhetoric and show by his actions that he doesn't support these past positions of his...Not even Dennis Prager whose works you so vocally opposed stooped to saying that as a Jew he rejects Ellison's claim that this is in his past


 * Elizmr questions and replies:
 * Agreed that NOI stuff belongs in the article; I'm glad we have a consensus on that point.
 * Evidence supporting history of Ellsion's involvement 2006 is already cited in the article
 * Agree that Ellison's involvement in the NOI and defense of their leaders was a choice he made in the past. That's why I don't feel it should be labeled as a "2006 election" controversy.  His past choices had nothing to do with the election of 2006.
 * On a further note, it IS clear that Ellison APOLOGIZED during his 2006 election campaign. One could say that the apology itself was an election controversy.  To present Ellison's apology in this way would certainly bias the reader against accepting the sincerity of the apology by making it seem politically motivated.  This would not be in accordance with WP:NPOV would it?
 * Whether or not I as a Wikipedia editor accept the apology is completely irrelevant. You seem to have reacted very personally to my comment that I will value his actions over his words.  To be perfectly honest, I'm a child of the post-Watergate era, and I don't put too much faith in the rhetoric of any politician.  It has nothing to do with Ellison.
 * "you can't have a controversy with no one on the other side". Fine point.  I would say that by characterizing this as an "election" controversy, you cast Ellison's political opponents in the role of the "other side".  This is disengenous.  No opponent made up these past stands of Ellison.  The controversy was Ellsion arging the Farakan was not antisemetic, or whatever, when others (ie the other side, the holders of the opposite opinion) argued tha the was
 * ???Not even DP whose works you so vocally opposed STOOPED TO saying that AS A JEW he rejects Ellison's claim that this in in his past??? Wow, I'm not sure what you are implying here, and want to WP:AGF so I won't even touch it.

Elizmr 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I invoked Prager as illustrative to my point he is very proud to call himself a practicing Jew a point he repeatedly made in the controversy over the Quran oarth. You Elizmr citing his work in that controversy have called Prager a fear-monger here’s your quote from above posted on 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [emphasis added] “IMO, this is not much of a controversy. It is more about the media trying to create a controversy and scare people about Ellison than a controversy of its own right.” So I thought since you see Prager as stooping to fear-mongering it might make an impression on you that this “fear-monger” who himself is Jewish has accepted Ellison’s apology for trying to deny Frakhan’s remarks weren’t anti-Semitic.--Wowaconia 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I'm not sure I see the logic in what you have said above, but I appreicate the attempt to try to explain things in what you percieve as my terms.  The other points above, however, are the relevant ones.  Could reply to those points?  Elizmr 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets look at when this was a controversy by reviewing stories from Minnesota Public Radio an accepted wiki-source. Lets go ahead and put all this information in the article this is not a question of information this is a question of where that information goes in the article. Remember a controversy is defined as “a dispute where there is strong disagreement” so there is only a controversy if there are at least two sides – in 2006 there was too sides Ellison and his supporter who held that his version of events and his apology were true and the other side which called that into question. At http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/09/13/fine/ it reads (emphasis added):
 * "I'm extremely concerned about Keith Ellison, Keith Hakim, Keith X. Ellison, Keith Ellison Mohammed. I am personally offended that this person is a candidate for U.S. Congress. He is unfit to represent the voters of the 5th District," Fine said. Fine says that, as a Jew, he's concerned that Ellison praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in a University of Minnesota newspaper column in 1990. Fine says he questions Ellison's sincerity about bringing people together since Farrakhan has made several anti-Semitic comments over the years.”

Also there’s this from http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/30/fifthdistrict/
 * “Ellison's opponents have tried to paint him as unfit to serve in Congress. Earlier this year Ellison admitted that he'd had his driver's license suspended because of unpaid parking tickets. Critics have also tried to tie him directly to the Nation of Islam, whose leader Louis Farrakhan has made anti-semitic comments and to the Council of American Islamic Relations, a group which some U.S. officials say has ties to terror groups.”

Review http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/09/15/midday1/ :
 * “He [Fine] also questions Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam. ‘We're not talking about one day,’ Fine said. ‘We're not talking about one moment. We're talking about someone who has been supporting these types of individuals over a long period of time, who has taken a leadership role in their organizations. I think that is a major issue that the public should be aware of.’ Fine has not provided any documentation that Ellison has been or is a member of the group. Ellison denies being a member of the Nation of Islam and says he's never met Louis Farrakhan. Ellison says he has worked with local members of the Nation of Islam to organize Minnesotans to attend the Million Man March. ...Debate moderator Gary Eichten asked Ellison whether he should be held to the same standard as former public safety commissioner Rich Stanek. In 2004 Ellison worked to get Stanek fired from his job as public safety commissioner because Stanek used a racial slur a decade earlier. ‘The truth is he used the 'n' word in a case where he was being sued for police brutality. He's apologized for that and I accept that. I never used a slur. I never said anything denigrating about an ethnic group or a group of people. What I did was wrote an article while I was still in school 16 or 17 years ago regarding affirmative action,’ he said. The allegations surrounding Ellison are not new. He's been forced to answer questions about his past since he won the DFL endorsement in May. What is new is the level of attack from Alan Fine and the Republican Party. The GOP has repeatedly criticized Ellison's past and wants to know if other DFL candidates agree with Ellison's past views.”

Here’s a citation by the wiki-approved St. Paul Pioneer Press newspaper at http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15889045.htm (emphasis added)
 * With Election Day a week away, Independence Party candidate Tammy Lee and Republican Alan Fine are chipping away at the 5th District front-runner, drawing him into his past as he aims toward a future in Congress.

Fine, a conservative long shot in Minnesota's most liberal district, calls Ellison an "embarrassment," while Lee's jabs, though more restrained, are nonetheless becoming more frequent. ‘If any of us had the personal record Keith Ellison has, we wouldn't be standing today,’ Lee said. …That history causes hesitation among those who don't trust the explanation that Ellison's indiscretions were inadvertent consequences of an exuberant young black trying to improve the lives of other blacks. …Meanwhile, others focus on episodes from the late 1980s and early 1990s — examples that seem to belie Ellison's ‘18-month’ claim.  ‘It's kind of a “I didn't inhale' answer,”’  said Minneapolis lawyer Marc Berg, who knew Ellison in law school. ‘He had something of an alignment with the Nation of Islam for much more than 18 months.’…But Minneapolis attorney Jordan Kushner, one of the Jewish law students at the time, said Berg and others seriously mistook Ellison. "There were things he admired about the Nation of Islam, with the emphasis about black people having self-reliance, but it had nothing to do with anti-Semitism,'' said Kushner, an active Ellison supporter now.
 * So yes there was a controversy on this during the 2006 election when there were two opposing sides that’s why I advocate it being placed in a segment called “Controversies during 2006 election”. This would header would also include the information about his parking tickets and the fines. It wasn’t just me who grouped these together but also the Pioneer Press in the article cited above which was titled “Controversy gnaws at Ellison lead” which besides mentioning the Nation of Islam information also says “She [an ex-Rep. Sabo aid] referred to incidences when Ellison, a lawyer, had his driver's license suspended for late payment of parking tickets and when he was fined for not filing state campaign finance reports on time.”

And the first Public Radio link I put in this posting contains “Fine is not the first to criticize Ellison's past. A group of conservative bloggers, the Minnesota Republican Party and some of Ellison's challengers in the DFL primary have raised similar questions over the summer. Ellison has also been criticized over having his driver's license suspended for failing to pay his parking tickets. He's taken heat as well because of fines he incurred for failing to file his campaign finance reports as a state lawmaker.”
 * But Elmzir advocates putting the Nation of Islam ties in a section merely called “Controversies” as if there was someone notable opposing Ellison on this issue. Also in a posting to this page on 23:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC) he calls for separation between that issue and the tickets and late filing fines says “The parking tickets and late filings are not in the same league as supporting an organization and individuals that engage in hate speech.”

Again I say let Elmzir find a wiki-accepted source with notable people still opposing Ellison on this and then it could be called an ongoing controversy and placed in a segment titled merely “Controversy”. Otherwise I can see no other reason to do so besides an attempt to give undue weight.Wowaconia 00:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In his post above Elzmir says "On a further note, it IS clear that Ellison APOLOGIZED during his 2006 election campaign. One could say that the apology itself was an election controversy. To present Ellison's apology in this way would certainly bias the reader against accepting the sincerity of the apology by making it seem politically motivated. This would not be in accordance with WP:NPOV would it?" I disagree I think if one included this information in a segment called "Controverises in the 2006 election/Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties" and just presented direct quotes chronologically it would be up to the reader to make up their own mind.Wowaconia 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, respectfully, I can't follow what you are saying with the list of quotes and additional refs above. It took me over a hour to sort out the comments you left on my user page previously and to reply. It is clear that you disagree, and I respect that. What you haven't done is to defend your point with a logical argument.  It simply does not make sense to label stuff that Ellsion wrote, did, and said BEFORE 2006 as a controversy of the election. Elizmr 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

recent changes
I made a few structural changes to the article. Some of these changes were previously made and revered.
 * I put All of the Minnesota stuff in one section rather than having the 84th session in its own section
 * I put the 2006 congressional election section right under Minnesota
 * I put advocacy for Islamic causes under the 2006 election
 * the various controversies secitons follow as they were previously.

I made a few content changes to the article.
 * THere was a bit about other elected reps who are muslim in the 2006 election section. It didn't belong there.  It made a nice header for the Muslim activism seciton, I thought, and I moved it there.
 * I removed some local minnesota politics stuff having to do with the primary and who Sabo supported. I think it is covered in the subarticle and is not notable enough for this main Ellison page.
 * I took out a sentence which formerly introduced Muslim activisim as OR. I had taken this out previously as OR and it was reverted.
 * I tightened up some language in various sections without making substantive changes.

All of my edits are discussed using edit summaries. Elizmr 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the segment movements you describe seem applaudable. I was thinking along the lines of moving the 2006 after the MN myself, so well done. The moving of the other Muslims officals to that segment makes perfect sense. The Controversies during the 2006 election should be moved to underneath the 2006 election segment though - all his advocacy in the segment is post election. I would argue for the inclusion of the Sabo information as it shows Ellison and the old guard Democratic leadership having difficulty with one another, it makes the reader wonder if they're going to support him fully. You would think a message from Nancy Pelosi would've gone a long way in the whole Prager thing (as the protocal rules are up to the speaker) but nothing came out. If some pattern develops the reader will be able to see it starting with Sabo.Wowaconia 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
Here is what I have put in Since being being elected to Congress, Ellison has beocme active on a national level in advocacy for Muslim causes.

I removed the clause about Ellison being active in advocacy since Law school since that was NOI and not Muslim Advocacy. OK? It is fair for something about this to be in the article. Elizmr 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just put ([the html for "Advocacy for Islamic causes" copied from the contents box |see below]) if they follow the sources straight from the header their going to go to a pdf and have no context about what they should be looking for, also if they read the segment first their more likely to vist the refs and the Flying Immams sub-page. More traffic to the sub-pages = GOOD. I haven't looked at your movements of the segments yet so I don't yet have an opinion on whether those segments make sense were you put them. Put it is certainly undeniable that post election he has been an advocate for Muslims, and it makes perfect sense to mention it in the header. Should he halt his advocacy once he gets his workload the line may need adjustment then. But As he currently is retired from the MN Congress and not yet in the US Congress. What he is most noted for is his Muslim advocacy. So the header is better with this simple statement.Wowaconia 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are saying about taking out the refs and putting in HTML. I'm sure your idea is a good one, but I'd be more comfortable with the refs there, so people can look at them if they want.  In general, it is not a good idea to take refs out of any wikipedia article if they are good refs, as these areElizmr 17:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion
Let's REMOVE Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties from the "Controversies during 2006 election" section. Let's put it under Muslim advocacy with this subheading, "Past Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties and apology during the 2006 election". Then let's have an "Controversies during the 2006 election which includes the other controversies, as well as the media stuff from CNN, prager, and the chat rooms as sub cats. The sections are just too messy now.Elizmr 03:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

While he is an advocate for CAIR and North American Imams Federation he has no association with the Nation of Islam anymore and so therefore if you wanted to make a segment "Current Advocacy" and one called "Past Advocacy" that might make sense, but I know that you do not believe that this is a past issue. So I do not think this breaks the impasse between our viewpoints. From your discussion posts with CSTAR you took umbrage at use of the word "past" to describe this association so I assume that's still your position.Wowaconia 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am trying HARD to come to a compromise on this, which means that I know I can't have this exactly the way I want it. I am trying to find a position that we can both be happy with.  My main concern is that I don't think it is an election controversy.  There are other things in the article that I feel ARE election controverises, but are NOT labeled as such (like the CNN interview and the SITE monitoring thing).  What I am suggesting is that we take this NOI thing OUT of the election controversy section AND put it in the Muslim advocacy section LABELED AS A PAST CONTROVERSY.  As a sub suggestion I am suggesting we collect the other controversies that are related to things that actually happened during or right after the election in section marked that way.   Please read this and think about it?  It should make you happy because it contains the word PAST, and it will make me happy because it will get this out of the election controversies where I don't think it belongs.  Elizmr 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It needs to have some chronological context within the article. I've always said that if you can gather more info on his Law School activities you could frame all this info around that. The segment about his life would end with him converting to Islam in University, then mention Law school then mention his writings in support of Farrakhan, then mention him getting married, then mention his law career, then mention work in MN Congress, then mention run for US congress, then mention the primaries, then mention articles coming up again in the primaries, and his apology, then his opponents in the general election calling his character into question because of the articles, then mention CAIR support, fees and tickets, then mention election results, then mention NY Daily News/S.I.T.E., then mention CAIR and N. AM. Imam advocacy, then mention Media personalities. I'VE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT THIS WOULD WORK, but you've never argued for this position. Please review my post on this page at 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC) in the talk-page section above (entitled "The ‘Controversies during 2006 election’ segment should not be folded into a catch-all ‘Controversies’ segment") where I wrote “Certainly instead of having the segment entitled ‘Life’ mention this in a sentence and tell the reader to (see below) and there at "Controversies during 2006 election" give them the full story…one could splice the segment on Ellison’s life in half and put the information about his writings in a section about his attendance at the U of M law school”. I assumed that you didn't find this acceptable, as your next response started with "I disagree." Then I, thinking you focused on the latter part of my post and missed the idea posted it again after your response when I said "If you can provide more sourced information on his college and law school activities that gave these ties more context than it could be moved to a segment that would start after the 'Life' segment that would stop at the point he develops ties to the nation of Islam and then the new segment with the newly discovered context about why he supported the Nation of Islam would begin." and your reply was "Sorry, but I hear you, but I really disagree." -So I thought you rejected that idea. Did you? If that's actually okay with you, I'd recommend looking at that Pioneer Press article http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15889045.htm where people who were with him in Law School talk about him bringing speakers who used hate speech to campus, and other saying he defended Jews and the holocaust while in Law School.--Wowaconia 18:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are already refs from the Washington Post for the material that (I think) we are talking about. It is not reasonable to demand more and more refs when good sources are already cited.
 * Your tone, "I've always said that you can....then you can frame x around y," implies you are the sole or "senior author" of this article and everything has to go through you. Please remember that this is a group project.  With all due respect, you do not own this article.  That is not the nature of Wikipedia.
 * I don't understand what you are saying about chronology. Are you saying the whole article should have a chronological framework from birth to present?
 * I apologize, but I don't follow the question you are asking me above. Could you state more briefly and concisely?  It is ok not to describe the thought process you used to get there and the "he said she said" of our talk page dialog up until now.  Just tell me what you are saying.
 * Finally, per the title of this section "compromise suggestion" do you have any specific remarks about the specific compromise I suggested?Elizmr 01:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A problem with breaking up the Nation of Islam (NOI) material is that Ellison claimed he was only briefly involved with the NOI. That statement makes the list of known NOI activities a part of the NOI controversy, thus those are in a single section.  Is his NOI activity in school relevant enough to schooling that it better belongs among school activities?  (SEWilco 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

I am calling for this information to be placed in a chronological context, either at 2006 election (which you have rejected) or at a new section focusing on Law School activities (which you have not explicitly rejected yet). Many articles follow the practice of placing controversy and scandal in a chronological timeline such as Trent Lott on the Strom Thurmond controversy, Mark Foley page scandal, Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, the William J. Jefferson bribery scandal, etc. Do you accept or reject moving the information about his writings into a segment about his law school activities and leaving the information about his apology and opponents bringing it up in the 2006 election segment?Wowaconia 08:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So, the answer to your question "Are you saying the whole article should have a chronological framework from birth to present?"
 * Yes.
 * Wowaconia 08:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but I'm not sure that total chronology would work for a brief article like this. In another venue, certainly.  I reject separating the thing he apologized for and the apology into sep sections of the article for issues of clarity and readability.  Elizmr 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Muslim causes
One should note that support for Muslim causes should be understood (at least what can be inferred from the citations given, such as those referring the six imams removed from the US Airwayy fight) for support for issues affecting Muslims in the United States and in the Twin Cities area in particular (which has a large number of Somali immigrants in his district).--CSTAR 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we change to advocacy for Muslims in the US? I guess that would be more descriptive of his current work, but it might be original researchy.  In any case, I think it would be fine to say that.  Elizmr 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Advocacy seems a little stronger than what seemed to me supported by the citations, but I won't object. It's a judgment call; moreover misperceptions will always occur, regardless of phrasing, due to imprecision of language.--CSTAR 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Keith Ellison’s ties to the Nation of Islam.
This is a dispute about where in the article Keith Ellison’s ties with the Nation of Islam should be discussed.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * '''Wowaconia maintains the information should be presented under the following:
 * 3 Controversies during 2006 election
 * 3.1 Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties'''


 * “this was the first time anyone took note of these writings and when he was pressed to respond to them. It was at this time that Ellison issued an apology for the remarks. It was fresh in the minds of those endorsing him who had to explain why they accepted his apology. It forced the voters to reflect on the issue and was fresh in their minds at the election.”
 * “The definition of controversy is ‘a dispute where there is strong disagreement’, so applying this to Ellison's ties with the Nation of Islam, there was disagreement whether his apology was real and acceptable or not. If you can find notable people who are currently saying his apology was not real or acceptable then the issue is still a controversy - otherwise there is no active controversy and all the details should be included in ‘Controversies during 2006 election’.”
 * “Several reliable media sources bunched this information with revelations of his unpaid parking tickets and late filing fees and portrayed them collectively as controversies surrounding Ellison, therefore they should be grouped together and as no media source is reporting them as still controversial they should be placed in a segment called "Controversies during 2006 election”
 * "Placing Ellison’s apology alongside information about his Nation of Islam writings and the reaction to them. Does not insert a judgement on the apology, but follows chronological order."
 * "The question is one of chronological context, placing it in a segment titled “Controversies” would than invite other editors to move the Beck and Prager information into that section, not necessarily in any chronological order either, if more controversies occur (such as other Congressmen having problems with his daily prayer schedule or something) than this too would go into this catch all “Controversies” section also without any chronological context. It should go between the primaries 2006 and election results 2006 information."

3 Controversies
 * '''Elizmr maintains the information should be presented under the following:
 * 3.1 Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties'''


 * background point #1 Ellison's involvement with or defense of the NOI and its leadership dates from the late 1980s to the late 1990s (refs from Washington Post)
 * background point #2 During his campaign for national office in 2006, Ellison apologized for his previous positions
 * concern #1 heading "Controversies of the 2006 election" should be reserved for controversies associated with the election; Ellison's involvement with the NOI completely predates the election.
 * concern #2  Labeling something as a controversy of an election which is over trivializes it and gives the reader the impression that it is irrelevant now--this inserts POV into the article
 * concern #3 Labeling the apology as a "Controversy of the 2006 election" would make the apology seem politically motivated and NOT genunie--this inserts POV into the article

06:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

"Controversies of the 2006 election" could be read two ways I think. Renaming it to whatever makes its meaning clearer would seem an acceptable solution. Whether it is an ongoing issue for people would depend on whether there's ongoing coverage of it as an issue. Ellison's support of civil unions and benefits for same sex partners would seem to indicate there's some distance between him and his past and current religious beliefs, or marks him as a pretty liberal muslim, or indicates he can separate his beliefs from his duties as a representative. Шизомби 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ellison's relationship with the Nation of Islam should go in its own section. Neither those ties nor the controversy around them began with the 2006 election campaign. Jonathunder 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jonathunder... the controversy appears to predate the 2006 election. It should have its own section under controversies.--Isotope23 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)