Talk:Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress

Where did Prager get information?
- Can anyone provide a link where Ellision has said he would be sworn in on the Koran prior to Prager writing his column? 24.82.91.241 07:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) SuluG 23:00, 5 December 2006 (PST)

I found a link to a Nov. 19 story by MaClatchy papers that mentions this and is pre-Prager's Nov. 28 column. I placed it in the intro to the article.--Wowaconia 09:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic tone
***Note this Wik-article used to be called "Keith Ellison, Dennis Prager, and the Oath on the Quran" it was renamed as per points in this discussion***Wowaconia 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is good and detailed but it wouldn't get in any encyclopaedia. It's more like the sort of reportage one sees in current affairs magazines - not quite detached enough. Also, I'm not sure about the title. Fys. Ta fys aym. 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the lead paragraph is a big problem. The first sentence isn't a proper sentence at all, for one thing, and there's an irritating assumption that everyone will know the article is referring to the U.S. I've specified United States Congress (it's not the only Congress in the world!) but I agree with you; this is more like a newspaper article or an essay than an encyclopedia one. The title is pretty terrible, too: is there an "accepted" way of referring to this event? If so, use it. Loganberry (Talk) 12:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Congressional oath controversy, 2006? Fys. Ta fys aym. 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please expand your critique if possible. The wiki-standards linked to the Tone header placed in this article include the following quote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#News_style
 * “News style - Some Wikipedians advocate using a news style. News style is the prose style of short, front-page newspaper stories and the news bulletins that air on radio and television. It encompasses not only vocabulary and sentence structure, but the order in which stories present information, their tone and the readers or interests to which they cater. Encyclopedia articles do not have to follow news style, but a familiarity with the conventions may be a great help in planning the style and layout of an article.”

If as you say "this is more like a newspaper article" isn't that what the standards are promoting as good wiki-page writing?--Wowaconia 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Noted conservatives respond?
It seems fairly POV to devote an entire section to "Noted Conservatives Respond", especially in the absence of a similar section with "Noted Progressives Respond". I'm not suggesting the latter be added, but I think a section with the response from public figures of various political leanings, rather than the current focus on conservatives, would help the article appear more neutral. As it stands, it comes off somewhat like the project of someone who restricts him or herself strictly to right-wing information sources. Which is an individual's prerogative, certainly, but isn't very conducive to NPOV. -- John Callender 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found any individuals on the Democratic side that the media has asked about this outside of Ellison and his staff. Most stories are talking about how Prager's comments are being attacked by his fellow conservatives, the only famous personality that I could find giving him support was Savage. Most of the groups siding against Prager are considered liberal and so far I could only find the one Conservative group (the AFA) that sided with him. I changed the title of the segment as per your points above. If you find any notable groups or individuals responding to this please add them or let me know and I'll add them.--Wowaconia 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a response by Ellison's previous opponent Tammy Lee from the Minnesota Independence party, but I thought she was unknown outside of Minnesota's Fifth District (and probably little known by most within it). If people feel otherwise I could post her quote in support of Ellison using the Quran.--Wowaconia 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and added section on Minnesotans that included Tammy Lee. Al Franken is set to air his show for Air America in the Minneapolis area on Friday Dec. 8, with one of his guests being the author of "Our Skeptical Founding Fathers" one would think this topic would be apropos. If there is any report of them mentioning it I'll put it on. Currently they have nothing on this topic at their website, and Democracy Now has nothing either. I'll pull up that Paula Zahn interview again and see if I overlooked a commentator with a more liberal prospective, I think there's a Hannity and Colmes debate on the same, I'll look for that too.--Wowaconia 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the comments of Daisy Khan and Malik Zulu Shabazz who were both on interviews opposite Prager. They got cut off quite a lot, but I collected what they were able to say..--Wowaconia 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Wiki a source of information, or a leftwing blog?Thomas Swift

I have been working for a neutral POV. I’ve quoted Prager and Ellison as much as possible; outside of public servants here’s a run down of the sides I referenced:
 * Conservative against Quran oath (not necessarily for same reasons as Prager) - Michael Savage, Gary Bauer, Ruth Matar, Jan Markell.
 * Conservatives vs. Prager column - Tucker Carlson, Mike S. Adams, Michael Medved, Eugene Volokh.
 * Progressives against Prager column - Ahmed Rehab, Daisy Khan, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, Malik Zulu Shabazz, Paul C. Campos.
 * If anyone thinks there’s a bias in the article please be specific in your critiques.Wowaconia 02:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of article length, this info moved to sub-page Media responses to the Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress.--Wowaconia 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I would prefer that the information not move to another page - however I favour the use of reference list above with one exception - the classification of Muslim commentators as 'Progressives' is questionable. Many Islamic commentators are conservative in a political (Bozzie61)

Comments by U.S. Congressman Virgil Goode
I just added this section to Goode's bio about his letter to constituents re: the Koran. Just thought I'd point that out so this article's contributors can decide how to incorporate that info. Cheers, Postdlf 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While I had thought this whole thing was just about dead, (with maybe a mention on the Daily Show and CNN when Ellison is getting his picture taken during the oath) this Rep. Goode info just cranked it up to a new level. Right now I just placed it with the other elected officials who responded, but if it gets more attention the whole article may have to be restructured. Prager who has stressed his non-Islamophobic history may be forced to distance himself from Goode linking this to keeping Muslims out of America.Wowaconia 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Many Jews insist on Tanakh not OLD Testament
Many Jews find the pharase "Old Testament" to describe their scriptures as offensive. Especially in light of the writings atrriuted to Paul of Tarsus Many Jews say that their YHWH (or Hashem as they would say) is perfect, got it right the first time and never required a New Testament. They call these Hebrew Scriptures the Tanakh and so when talking about Jews using non-Christian Scriptures the term Old Testament is a pejoritive. Prager does not feel this way but the elected officials using these Hebrew Scriptures do, so the word Tanakh should be used.--Wowaconia 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heb 8:6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Any use of "Old Testament" in people's quotes should remain of course, Prager uses the term and the KSTP interviewer (asking him if it was okay if it was okay if Jews used the Old Testament to swear in) used that specific language and therefor it should not be changed in those quotes to Tanakh. Sentences about Jewish elected officials specificly rejecting the Christian Scriptures should use the term Tankah--Wowaconia 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To Jews "New Testament" is not an addendum, its heresy
The following lines are in error:
 * "It is noteworthy that the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament within it, in addition to other works deemed non-canon by Judaism. The fact that the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament, and that they are essentially the same text, only with an "addendum" so to say, of additional works deemed by Christianity to be canon, makes it a far cry from attempting to compare the Christian Bible with the Koran, which, in its entirety, is a completely foreign text, considered non-canon according to both Judaism and Christianity."
 * This is mistaken as the Jews reject the Christian Scriptures and if a group such as "Jews for Jesus" holds them to be inspired they are viewed as removing themselves from Judaism, i.e. heretics.
 * "The relationship of the Mormon scriptures to the Christian Bible can be said to be analogous to the relationship of the Christian Bible itself to the Old Testament."
 * This is not true the Mormons hold that the Book of Mormon is a testimony to the North American works of Jesus and their other two gods (they do not believe in a triune godhead; 3 in 1). Jews see the Christian Scriptures called "The New Testament" as false, Mormons see the Christian Bible as wholly true. Therefore the anaolgy is wrong. Since the Christian work which is called "The Old Testament" is based on the Greek translation called the Septuiguint many Jews see this as a twisted mockery of the original Hebrew where the very Hebrew letters have mystical meaning and are commented on in the Talmud.Wowaconia 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "...inasmuch as it is correctly translated". Mormons do not believe the current bible is correctly translated, but Joseph Smith never got arround to "correctly" translating it. Were the book of mormon deviates from traditional Christian teachings, they say that that section of the Bible was not correctly translated. So to affirm that Mormons believe the Bible is true, is misleading. -- Dullfig 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Smith did finish translating the Bible as can be seen at this link on the LDS' site. Smith's translation was done with claims of divine aid and certain passages are different than what is found in many other translations done by scholars who did not make claims of divine intervention but based their work on their expertise in ancient languages. The reason that the Latter Day Saints use the King James Version with notes of the Joseph Smith Translation is that a different smaller sect of Mormons has the original text by Joesph Smith and they refuse to allow a group they see as heretical get there hands on it. There are many Christians who maintain that only the King James Translation is valid and hold that this is because unbeknownst to the scholars at the time they were being aided by Divine Intervention. Many Protestants are disgusted by the Translation that Roman Catholics use (as is mentioned in the article). As the LDS currently use and cite the KJV I do not think this article is misleading to say that they "believe the Bible is true". Questions of what is and what is not a good translation are outside of the scope of this article and would be best presented on the LDS page or the Bible's wiki-page.--Wowaconia 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What point are you trying to make? The Christian Bible consists of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, just like the the Mormon sacred cannon consists of the Christian Bible and the Book of Mormon.  Your point about the authenticity of different translations, is minutiae  that doesn't detract from the soundness of the analogy.Ggrzw (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The attempted analogy is basically : just as jews should see the Christian New Testament as an addendum to their Scriptures, mainline Christians should see the Book of Mormon as an addendum to the Scriptures they recognize. The analogy doesnt work because the Jews don't see the Christian New Testament as an addendum but as totally false and even view what the Christians call the Old Testament as totally messed up as well because its from a botched Greek translation (the Septuagint) of the original Hebrew. So according to Judaism everything in the Christian Bible is in error. One might claim that the Mormons see the Book of Mormon as an addendum to the Christian Bible, but one can not claim that this is analogous to how the Jews view their own Scriptures and the Christian's New Testament.Wowaconia (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Apocrypha: profane vs. non-canonical
The articl had said that some Protestants see the Deutrocanical books of the Catholics as apocrypha and "profane" but this was changed to saying that they see them as "non-canonical". Profane means not holy, which carries a judgement and implies rejection and possibly disgust. I'll switch it to this ref http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm which has headings like "21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired" and makes claims like "The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection", "The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship", "It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation", and "forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament". The article on the Quran oath controversy is about the strong feelings people have over someone not using scriptures they approve, so pointing out that JFK used a book that contained parts most of the officials in history would have seen as unholy is analogous to the current situation. The phrase "non-canonical" makes it seem like a dry academic debate instead of something people have argued angrily over throughout most of history. I will therefore change "non-canonical" to a quote from the above website so it has a ref.Wowaconia 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The length and nature of the definition of Apocrypha in the paragraph on Kennedy appear to be POV. To leave it there, and bring it back to NPOV would require something from the Catholic POV. Both would be out of place in this article. My suggestion is to shorten it to something like the following:

"The Library of Congress notes that “As the first Catholic elected president, Kennedy was the first to use a Catholic (Douay-Rheims) version of the Bible for his oath.” This means that Kennedy’s Bible was different than the Bibles of all other Presidents (past or present) as it contained the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants call the Apocrypha and reject."

The deleted material is more suited to one of the articles on Apocrypha. SlowJog 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Protestants reject claiming it is profane." and then give the previous reference. That they claim it is profane is undisputed. The point of saying more than just "reject" is to show that Kennedy's bible was a significantly and controversially different book than George Washington's despite Prager's claim of an unbroken tradition.--Wowaconia 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version is much better, and more suited to the article than the previous version. I intended to include the part about regarding the Apocrypha as “uninspired,” but accidentally omitted in my select, copy, and paste.

The fact remains that the copy of the King James Version Bible that Presidents Washington, Harding, Eisenhower, Carter and Bush took their oath of office on CONTAINS the Apocrypha. So the sentence about the Kenedy's Douay Bible being different contains some of the Apocrypha needs a major rethought. 69.154.229.131 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm thinking that we should just remove those two sentences. In the context of this article, what's the point about the bible Kennedy used? SlowJog (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Muslims do not see Christian Scriptures as sacred
Whoever insinuated that Muslims like Mormons see the Christian Bible as sacred is in error. While Muslims do hold that Jesus was a prophet, and "have respect" for the Christian Bible, they do not hold that it was divinely inspired. They do not believe Jesus died for sins, and maintain that he switched places with Judas at the betrayal kiss and that the Romans crucified Judas while Jesus went to Mecca.--Wowaconia 14:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Now where did you pick up that idea about Jesus going to Mecca? As far as I know that statement is incorrect. Muslims believe that Jesus was raised to heaven by Allah. Secondly, you are incorrect when you say that muslims do not believe that the Bible is 'divinely inspired'. The general muslim belief about the Bible is that is was originally revealed to Jesus by Allah, through the angel Gabriel, but over the course of time it has been changed.--MUZ 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim's indeed believe he was raised to heaven but not that he was crucified see Islamic view of Jesus' death; Where this quote from the Quran is cited:
 * “And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” —Qur'an, 4:157-158

This is an total denial of the doctrines of Christianity where the death of their Jesus on a cross is an absolute neccesity.
 * 1 Corinthians 15:3 “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”
 * Mark 10:45 “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
 * 1 John 4:10 “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
 * Galatians 3:13 (emphasis added) “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’”

I can not find the source that told the Islamic Jesus did the hajj once escaping the hands of the crucifiers, but as Islam is believed to have been handed down to Adam and the hajj is a pillar of Islam it follows that they believe he must have performed it or will do it upon his return. The Hajj is clearly linked to the Islamic prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) so as their Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus) is also considered a prophet he is required to do the hajj. So without a better source, I concede that I do not know when the majority of Muslims hold that Isa ibn Maryam did the hajj or if most Muslims hold he will do so in the future. As there are Islamic scholars who maintain that the Quran does not say Isa ibn Maryam will return in some second coming see here then according to this school he must have done the hajj before ascending.

Concerning the Injil
 * Your statement "The general muslim belief about the Bible is that is was originally revealed to Jesus by Allah, through the angel Gabriel" is wrong.

Muslim’s hold that Muhammad received revelations from Allah, delivered through the angel Gabriel and the content of these revelations became the Qur'an. The Muslim belief in a pure Injil, is a claim of an inspired oral tradition or something akin to a Q document.
 * http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryI.html states:

"Injil signifies the inspired orations and utterances of Jesus (S.A.W.) which he delivered during the last two or three years of his earthly life in his capacity as a Prophet. The Injil mentioned by the Quran should, however, not be identified by the four Gospels of the New Testament which contain a great deal of material in addition to the inspired statements of the Prophet Jesus. Presumably the statements explicitly attributed to Jesus (S.A.W.) constitute parts of the true, original Injil."
 * You'll note that even here they add the caveat of "presumably".

Your claim that Muslims believe that the Bible is 'divinely inspired' or that it lost its pure state because "over the course of time it has been changed." Is due to confusion over the definition of Injil. Recall that the Quran states that Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) was never crucified. This is not an open question for Muslims as the Quran is seen as the perfect untainted final revelation that can not be corrupted - as Allah is held to have promised to protect it:
 * “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).” Qur'ân 15:9

Therefor any text that claims Jesus was crucified is a lie according to Islam and can’t possibly be divinely inspired. As the oldest available manuscripts of the Christian scriptures all maintain that Jesus was crucified as well as Polycarp, Ignatius, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, and even Josephus Flavius there is neither literary nor archaeology support to the Islamic claim so it becomes a proposition of faith. Therefor many Muslim scholars maintain that Isa ibn Maryam preached the Injil, but that no human ever recorded it perfectly. So the Christian New Testament did not become corrupt but was created corrupt by people not understanding the truth about Isa ibn Maryam. Some Non-Muslim scholars believe that the word “Injil” is an abbreviation of the Greek word Ευαγγέλιον, usually pronounced by English speakers as evangel i.e. "good news" i.e. “Gospel” therefor the confusion. But equating the Injil with the Christian Gospels is an error as one is held not to conflict with the Quran’s claims that Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) never was crucified for anyone’s sins and the other declares that not only did this happen but it is the very definition of “good news” (see Acts 8:32-35 where the Eunuch asks for the meaning behind a passage “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth” and asks who is this about and “Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.”)

One of the reasons that Muslims have historically been tolerant of Christians is that most of them believe that Isa ibn Maryam will return and tell Christians they were wrong about him and then there will be a mass conversion to Islam. See http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=a3sJmP which says:
 * "As has been pertinently pointed out by Dr Jamal Badawi in one of his talks, one of the purposes of Jesus's Second Coming is to correct the misguided Christians. When Jesus himself comes and corrects them, they cannot but accept him. So we may expect that most Christians will become Muslims (=those who surrender to God) then."

--Wowaconia 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and the hajj - while it may be that I encountered a ref in the past from an Islamic scholar that held there would be no 2nd coming of Isa ibn Maryam and therefor he performed the requirement of hajj by leaving Roman occupied Judea for Saudi Arabia. After more searching I now think that the majority of Muslims hold that there will be a 2nd coming and that this is when he will do the hajj.
 * As per http://www.irshad.org/islam/prophecy/messiah.htm (emphasis added)

"And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e. Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.(The Holy Quran, An-Nisa, 4:159) There will be no oppression and no need to fight oppressors (war will be abolished) and no need to collect Jizyah (since there will be no non-Muslim people of the Book to collect this tax from). Every human being will be well-off and no one will accept charity. Messiah will perform Hajj and/or Umrah, marry, remain married for 19 years, beget children, and die after living on earth for 40 years. His death will signal the beginning of the last days: And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. (Quran, Az-Zukhuruf, 43:61)"
 * --Wowaconia 11:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The hajj is a required, if one can afford it, journey that commemorates the unarmed march from Medina to Mecca by Mohammad and his followers. So, WHY would Jesus Christ make a hajj before a hajj was performed once or required? Just more Islamophobia and disinformation. Unless the questioner is now denying causality and has effect precede cause! Full disclosure, I'm Christian, but well versed in the Quran and Hadith. Well enough versed to converse intelligently with Saudis on their faith and even correct on in a minor error. Wzrd1 (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting POV problem
I'm normally very lenient in my personal views about notability (i.e., I tend to argue that there should be a low threshhold for notability before a topic is considered appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia). With this article, though, I find myself tending toward the other side. That is, I think this article as written tends to elevate this particular topic beyond what its inherent notability would justify.

While the material in the article, taken sentence by sentence, seems to be presented in a suitably neutral manner, the overall sense that I get is that a series of over-the-top statements, mostly by a single conservative commentator, are being showcased in a manner that tends to inflate their importance beyond what an NPOV encyclopedia article should be doing.

I got this feeling a few weeks ago, when the article was much smaller, but with the length that the article has grown to, even to the point of now having spin-off articles, I think this problem is getting worse. Again, it's not the individual statements in the article that have a POV problem, as much as the overall selection of material.

I could see this topic getting three or four paragraphs, including suitable coverage of those who have been critical of Prager's remarks. As it stands, though, this article reads like the sort of thing Prager himself might wish for, in terms of extending and showcasing the "controversy" he seeks to raise about Ellison's Quaran statement.

I don't doubt the good faith of the individual who has made virtually all the edits in the article up to this point. But I think the article is overdue for some major condensing and balancing, and would benefit from some additional users' editorial perspectives. -- John Callender 22:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say that I share this concern. I got no such impression from reading the whole thing. I was interested in the responses and the evolution of the issue. I don't think the article overplays it. If you really think it does, why don't you make a copy of it at User:John Callender/Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress and prune it to your liking, notify the other users on this talk page when you're done, and we can compare the possibilities. But you might want to wait and see if anyone else at all is sympathetic to your general proposal before you take the time to do that work. I'm not. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you think that something like Heim theory should deserve only a very brief article, since a lot of scientists call it "crackpottery"? It really comes down to the amount of verifiable material, however since that is defined as the "primary criterion" for notability (more specifically the amount of good (ie. reliable) verifiable material), I suppose you could call it a "notability problem", but once sufficient coverage is found to aestablish notability, then figuriung out how to arrange all the publications, etc. is decided with the policy on WP:Undue weight, not notability, at least not the type you seem to be referring to. That policy is not so much related to the absolute notability (what WP:N determines) of the subject in itself, as it is to the relative notability or significance of the various viewpoints on it (although the absolute notability can determine how much reliable, verifiable material is available for documenting the topic.). For example, if we have viewpoints A, B, C on subject X, then if viewpoint A is more prominent than viewpoint B then we give viewpoint A more coverage. If viewpoint C is bigger still then we give it even more coverage, etc. We could of course cover viewpoint A more in an article devoted to it, however the theoretical max amount of coverage on any view, of course, wherever it is put, is limited by the amount of available verifiable information. 70.101.147.224 05:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to collect every scrap of notable information on the topic and include as much context as possible, while it may seem like a lot, please recall the Wiki-guideline: WP:NOT (emphasis added) “Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite. As Wikipedia grows, so will computing power, storage capacity, and bandwidth. While there is a practical limit to all these at any given time, Wikipedia is not likely to ever outgrow them. Founder Jimbo Wales has stated his desire that Wikipedia should not become yet another discussion forum. But it definitely is something different from a paper encyclopedia, and Wikipedians should take advantage of that fact. The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits in the Wikipedia universe. It is quite possible, for example, that when you finish typing in everything you want to say about poker, there might well be over 100 pages, and enough text for a full-length book by itself. This would certainly never be tolerated in a paper encyclopedia, which is why Encyclopedia Britannica has such limited information on the topic (and on most other topics). But there is no reason at all why Wikipedia should not grow into something beyond what could ever possibly be put on paper. Plain text takes up an almost negligible amount of disk space. At seven letters per word, a 100 GB hard drive that costs around $70 US can hold 15 billion words. That's two million words per penny!”

Surely an article about the controversy surrounding the first Muslim US Legislator (where he has been getting death threats by other Americans for desiring to use his holy book) is more important than any 100 wiki-pages on poker.--Wowaconia 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only explain my great interest in this article by relating my own POV. I was away from this country at the time of this controversy, but recall the bit of angst and alarm I felt when I heard of it. Angst and alarm, as I was serving with fellow soldiers who happened to be Muslim and were defending this nation and literally facing danger every day from IED's, snipers and firefights. My first concern was how they would be treated when they returned home. So, I'm home now, finally retired and got to read about it here. So, to me it was a highly valuable article and of sufficient length for me to understand the scope of the controversy AND division in our nation. But then, I prefer more verbose information over a brief and potentially missing important information. Wzrd1 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Requirement of Holy Book
As the article mentions in the Oath Ceremonies section, holy books aren't used in the official Congressional swearing-in, but only at private ceremonies after the fact. I think this fact should be briefly mentioned in the intro section rather than just buried deep in the article. As the article is currently framed, readers may read through the article for quite some time before they realize that the use of holy books is a private thing rather than an official act. Readers may even stop before they reach that point. I think it's important to briefly outline the key facts, such as holy books not being part of the official oath, up front. It makes a difference in perception. As is, readers may think that Ellison is trying to disrupt the status quo, rather than that Praegar is trying to impose his own beliefs on Ellison's private ceremony. If the article is about the controversy (rather than about Praeger's opinion) then the major facts, such as the use of holy books should be briefly summarized in the intro. --JamesAM 17:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As per your suggestion I added the line and the ref for the quote in it into the intro:
 * Presented with the fact that all members of the House officially swear in (or affirm) en masse without the use of any religious text and that such works are only used in ceremonial reenactments afterwards, Prager stated “that’s the whole point: it’s exactly because it’s ceremonial that it matters”." --Wowaconia 19:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
someone has added the following section, i thinks it is vandalism since it is not linked to the subject therefore, i am reverting to the previous version --Don Qad 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC): Edit: someone have just reverted it before me :P

Jefferson's marginalia
Would be interesting to know more about that, should the information arise. Шизомби 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While this is not explicitly about Jefferson's marginalia it does give some interesting information. Here is some info I found.--Wowaconia 06:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) from http://muslimonline.org/lofiversion/index.php?t105.html “How Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur'an. (abstract) By Kevin J. Hayes, University of Central Oklahoma (June 2004)  The article relates the interest shown by former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson in studying Islam and his reading of the Koran. On Jefferson's visit to the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765, he purchased a copy of the Qur'an, specifically, George Sale's English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. Jefferson's purchase of the Qur'an at the time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in the area as widely as possible. The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion. Entries he made in his literary commonplace book about the same time he purchased Sale's Koran show that he was seeking to reconcile contradictions between history and scripture that were becoming increasingly apparent to him.”

about the same book by Hayes from http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/early_american_literature/v039/39.2hayes.pdf "The surviving Virginia Gazette daybooks hint that he [Jefferson] was studying for his bar examination in early autumn, when he purchased a copy of Grounds and Rudiments of Law and Equity, a general survey that would have made an ideal study guide. On another visit to the Gazette office this autumn, Jefferson purchased a copy of the Qur'n, specifically, George Sale's English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed, recently republished in a handy two-volume edition. Jefferson's purchase of the Qur'n at this time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in this area as widely as possible."

From: http://www.islamamerica.org/articles.cfm/article_id/119/ “Not all that the Founding Fathers read about Islam was negative. Despite popular opinion, some concluded that they needed to have a better understanding of Islam in order to reach a correct analysis. For this reason, Jefferson and others read many books that the public found highly controversial. The first volume of Sale's Koran, owned by Jefferson, consisted of the author's exposition and personal assessment of the Prophet Mohammad and the religion he professed. In a gesture reflecting public opinion, Sale refers to the Prophet as an ‘infidel’ and an ‘imposter.’ The thrust of his discussion, however, is to provide a fair assessment of an individual and a religion which was grossly misunderstood in this country. In an introductory statement to the reader, Sale states: 'I shall not here inquire into the reasons why the law of Mohammed has met with so unexampled a reception in the world, (for they are greatly deceived who imagine it to have been propagated by the sword alone) or by what means it came to be embraced by nations which never felt the force of Mohammedan arms, and even by those which stripped the Arabians of their conquests, and put an end to the sovereignty and very being of their Khalifs.' A few pages later Sale adds: ‘For how criminal soever Mohammed may have been in imposing a false religion on mankind, the praises due to his real virtues ought not to be denied him.’ Sale concludes that the Prophet's ‘original design of bringing pagan Arabs to the knowledge of the true God was certainly noble and highly to be commended.’ Sale embarks on a long admiring description of the Prophet's personality and moral character, followed by long detailed chapters on Islamic history, theology, and law. In the course of his discussion, he disposes of many of the negative myths about Islam. He also compares Islamic law and Islam's historical track record with that of Christianity and Judaism, pointing out that Islam has done no worse than the other two religions. Two points made in this manuscript are particularly salient in light of Jefferson's writings. First, Sale points out that Prophet Muhammad rejected the concept of the Trinity and the divinity of the Virgin Mary. Jefferson had taken a similar position in his correspondence with William Short. Second, Sale states that the Prophet declared that his ‘business was only to preach and admonish, that he had no authority to compel any person to embrace his religion.’ This point is reiterated by the Qur'an itself, which is translated in the second volume of Sale's Koran. Again, Jefferson expressed a similar point of view in his writings about freedom of belief. …In fact, Jefferson argued that society should be tolerant of the religious practices of others so long as they do not harm the public good. He gives the example of killing calves or lambs. This appears to be a reference to the Islamic annual custom in which a lamb is sacrificed to celebrate the event where Abraham's son was spared by God and a lamb was sacrificed in his stead. If Jefferson was in fact making this reference, then it is possible that Jefferson was thinking of slave practices, since most Muslims in the American colonies at that time were slaves who were brought forcefully from Africa. This raises a further question of the extent of contacts between Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, and their slaves, and how many of those were Muslim. The question of whether the Founding Fathers had meaningful contact with Muslim slaves is not one of idle speculation, since it is established that many of the Muslim slaves were literate and hence assigned to house duties. Labor assignments in the house, as opposed to those in the field, would have allowed Muslim slaves to have increased contact with their ‘masters.’ Initial inquiry into relationships between colonial masters and slaves has already yielded information that Jefferson, in particular, had extensive contacts with two slaves: Jupiter and Sally Hemmings. We do not yet have adequate information as to their religious beliefs or the beliefs of other slaves in the Jefferson household.”
 * Interesting, thanks. I don't know if there's an article here were any of that could go, although a note about Jefferson's purchase of Sale's edition could probably go in Sale's article, which is just a stub. Шизомби 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tracking the vandal from Deutsche Telekom
There has been a continued campaign of slanderous vandalism on this site and that of Keith Ellison (politician) were an unlogged user inserts 7,700 bits of info quoting the blog “jihadwatch” starting with the sentence “Mohammed Reza Taheriazar wrote that the following Quranic verses and others are used by Islamic terrorists to justify their cause…”

According to RIPE Network Coordination Centre some of this vandalism is coming from computers overseen by Ruediger Volk & Berthold Paffrath from the Security Team of Deutsche Telekom AG, Germany. Lets track these events to see if further action should be taken against this individual. If the vandal relents than we can forget the matter.--Wowaconia 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidents on this page so far:


 * 21:26, 26 December 2006 84.146.209.79
 * 17:59, 27 December 2006 84.146.253.115
 * 23:36, 27 December 2006 84.146.253.115
 * 21:45, 3 January 2007 84.146.221.75
 * 17:24, 4 January 2007 84.146.223.200

Questions on "unbroken tradition"
This section is about the tradition of swearing in of Presidents. But, the controversy centered around a congressman. Perhaps some research on the traditions of representatives would be appropriate.

Can not be moved to a page with any participants name in it as will be seen as POV
An editor seeking to shorten the title sought to move this article under a page named Keith Ellison Qur'an controversy. The problem with this is that both Prager and Ellison claim that their would be no controversy if the other person had not made it into a controversy. Therfor to associate only Ellison's name with the controversy will be seen as POV against Ellison. To expand it to Prager, Goode, and Ellison quran controversy will not shorten but lengthen the title, as their were multiple Federal Legislators who made comments on this subject it is an event that effected the entire 110th Congress so though the name may be long it is more apt and has NPOV.--Wowaconia 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sizing the reenactment photo.
As the photo is actually the heart of the controversy I think it should be as large as posssible. I would argue that as the table of contents is so long and there is a massive blank spot next to it, this should be filled by the photo. Why leave all that blank area to scroll through with nothing in it?--Wowaconia 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

way too many images.
prolly should cut down.

Please see the wiki-guideline at What is a good article?
 * (emphasis added)"What is a good article?
 * A good article has the following attributes.
 * 6) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
 * 6) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:


 * (a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
 * (c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale"

If you are saying that there are pictures that are included that are unneccessary because they "fail to illustrate the topic" please disscuss.
 * Cheers--Wowaconia 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On inclusion of images of Mein Kampf and 9/11
The images of "Mein Kampf" and of the "9/11 attacks" do not illustrate the topic. First, these images have more to do with Dennis Prager than with Keith Ellison, as these images were pertaining to Dennis Prager's statements and not Ellison's. Secondly, what association does Keith Ellison have with "Mein Kampf" and 9/11?...None of course.

It appears that these images were put here deliberately to create a visual association between Keith Ellison, Hitler and the 9/11 attacks. Ramaw 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

rm'd out broken code, i have no idea what was being attempted here - dbase error? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a sub-page for Ellison but a page about the controversy, one of the aspects of the controversy was Prager invoking 9/11 and Mein Kampf. Prager wanted to put these images into peoples minds and his critics decried him for doing so. The segment where these pictures were placed talk about the criticisms and his response to it. Including the pictures invites the reader to gauge the intensity that Prager felt (whether justified or not) and why his critics responded as they did. One may wish to take Prager to task for invoking these images, but one can not take this article to task for quoting Prager. The emotional response that leads one to remove these pictures is the same response that led his critics to decry him invoking them. Which argues well for there placement in a section about his critics responding to his words.--Wowaconia 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Prager may have wanted to use these images, but we don;'t have to. Just as we can quote Prager's words without reprinting his whole speech, we can remove these images. Is there, in fact, any evidence that Prager actually used these images in his campaign against Ellison?  Or did he just talk about the topics? If he just talked about it, it's escalating his attack to use the images. Even if he did, they are not appropriate here. I don't want to start another round of reverting, but I'm coming here from outside, and this is not reasonable POVDGG 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should mention that I read the pictures as discrediting Prager, not Ellison-=-as demonstrating the unfare nature of Prager 's rhetoric. If he did not use the actual pictures, then then exagerate it rather than demonstrate it fairly.

DGG 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken references to Rep. Hirono
This article contains several references to Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) being a Buddhist. Actually, while she was raised Buddhist, she says she does not practice the religion.   -- Teditor 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thw ref you site says she "doesn't actively practice the religion", she still calls herself a Buddhist. See this quote from the New York Times "Ms. Hirono does not practice daily, but she is influenced by Buddhist values. It is 'characteristic of Buddhism that there is respect and tolerance for other religions,' she said."
 * --Wowaconia 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that make her a Buddhist? If someone is influenced by Christian values, does that make him or her a Christian? I don't think that "respect and tolerance" is all that's necessary to characterize Hirono as a Buddhist.
 * --Teditor 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

She says she doesn't actively practice the religion which is not the same as renouncing the religion or being part of some other religion. She also says she is influenced by its values and feels attached enough to the religon to act as a spokesperson explaining its characteristics. Neither does she present herself as unaffiliated with any religion. When she says she is influenced by Buddhist values and then explains a Buddhist value she is saying her reason for practicing that value is Buddhism. So why does Hirno show respect and tolerance for other religions? Because Buddhism taught her too. A person who follows the teachings of Buddhism is a Buddhist. If a person says they are influenced by Christian values but don't practice daily (for example they never attend Church), but their actions and worldview cite Christian scriptures or theologians, then yes they are still Christians. Its whats called a "lapsed" Christian, so Hirno might be called a lapsed Buddhist, but she is still a Buddhist.--Wowaconia 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

See also this quote from a story by Gannett News Service (emphasis added) “Rep. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who was raised in the Buddhist tradition but doesn’t actively practice the religion, said, “I don’t have a book. … But I certainly believe in the precepts of Buddhism and that of tolerance of other religions and integrity and honesty.”
 * --Wowaconia 03:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Length and detail of article
This article is getting excessively long, particularly since this controversy has died down. Keith Ellison is actually my rep and I don't care this much. But I would like some consensus before making significant cuts. Natalie 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd made a similar comment earlier, and took it up on Wikipedia talk:Notability. I no longer see it as such a big deal; if one user gets way obsessed with a subject and wants to write a magnum opus, I guess he should be able to do so, as long as the information otherwise lives up to the standards of a good Wikipedia article.


 * The one concern I had originally was that such extensive treatment would elevate a minor "controversy" in a way that served the interests of a self-promotion-oriented commentator like Prager. But at this point I'm not that concerned over that. -- John Callender 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps we could cut everything that relates to Pager's excessive columns, for they go on and on and on. NuclearWarfare 03:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see in Dennis Prager that he is self-promotion-oriented. And it somehow doesn't seem proper to cut Prager out of an article which describes him as being a central figure in the topic.  Maybe the article would get smaller if you cut out Ellison.  (SEWilco 03:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

I respectfully disagree about shortening or simplifying the article. I was deployed for nearly 5 years and noted, briefly the controversy and was rather concerned about the treatment that some of my Muslim soldiers may receive when redeploying home, this heightened those concerns greatly. I'm retired now and home, so got to read the entire controversy in detail and with enough scope to understand the scope of the feelings quite well. As such, the length was invaluable to me, as I did NOT have access to this level of information previously. I just didn't have time to track it... I strongly suggest it remain as is. Who knows what someone of another generation may want to know? Wzrd1 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced
This article devotes an enormous amount of weight to Dennis Prager, an AM radio of dubious renown and reliability. Whole sections are titled, "Prager rescinds," "Prager dismisses," "Prager responds," etc. The views of others are largely confined to a collective quote farm, and then there, they are often phrased as responses to Prager. Prager seems to pop up everywhere — it seems like everything he's ever said on the issue is reported somewhere in this article.

I do not believe this approach is consistent with WP:UNDUE, especially given the WP:BLP issues. This article is not a biography but it pertains to the actions of a living public figure, and as such, I believe we should write "in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, [criticism] needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

In a related matter, I take issue with the title, since it presumes the existence of a "controversy" over a "Qur'an oath" (whatever the heck that is), which is leading. I would suggest "Ceremonial swearing-in of Keith Ellison" instead. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

1) I think your extension of the guidelines for BLP is mistaken. The title reflects that this article refers to an event. There are not critics but actors on both side of the controversy. Similarly one could not write of the Travelgate controversy and claim that citing Clinton's opponents was a violation of BLP standards because they are critical of his explanation. To try and eliminate the comments of anyone critical of Ellison's stance would be to introduce POV. 2)Please refer to the references; the event was massively covered by the media and in every article Prager was shown as the lead actor for one side of the controversy. Not including his words and actions would be like not mentioning Gonzales in the Attorney General firing controversy. 3) As for the title no one had an issue with Ellison as a politician they had an issue with him using a Quran. The use of the phrase the 110th Congress gives the event a time period (Just as Christian Representatives often choose to hold a Bible during the mass swearing in, Ellison is likely to have a Quran in his hands or on his desk every time there is a mass swearing in, but this is unlikely to generate the same level of scrutiny in the future). Previous titles with names included where protested against because other editors felt that putting a name in the title introduced POV. 4)I do agree that quotations from non-central characters on both sides can be better summarized and massively shortened to a paragraph or such.--Wowaconia 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is all about the actions of one man, Ellison, and the commentary generated about them. Nobody has suggested removal of anyone critical of Ellison's stance, least of all Prager. However, this article devotes enormous space to a laborious elaboration of every statement Mr. Prager made on the issue, to the point where whole sections are labelled "Prager responds...", "Prager condemns...", etc. I am suggesting that, in line with WP:BLP#Criticisms, we should report Prager's criticisms dispassionately and conservatively, without giving weight to every single statement he may have made on the issue.
 * I am aware that the event was heavily covered, especially by television stations eager to scoop up whatever they can to fill in the 24/7 news cycle. The event is certainly notable in its own right and it may be that a proper treatment would be too long for Keith Ellison's article. However, simply expressing an opinion on an issue does not make one a "central character". A quick-and-dirty series of google news searches show that only about 10-20% of articles containing "Ellison" and "Koran" (qur'an, quran) also contain "Prager", making your claim that "every article" showed Prager as a "lead actor" highly dubious. Can you support it with anything beyond personal observations?
 * You mentioned that previous article titles with names in them were considered POV. However, I don't see where in the discussion that was concluded, rather, the objections seemed to have been to the excessively "newsy" nature of the writing and coverage. Very clearly, Ellison was the center of the dispute.
 * Again, just a quick-and-dirty search, but Google news has 29 articles since 2006 which have "koran" and "congress" and ("oath" or "swearing in") but not "ellison", and they are virtually all false positives or articles about another subject (like "Democrats Take Control of Congress") which mention Ellison as "a congressman" without saying his name. By contrast, there are 115 articles for the above search which do mention Ellison by name, and all but one or two of them are about the controversy.
 * Even without BLP it's prima facie evident that Mr. Prager is devoted extremely heavy weight here, far beyond what WP:NPOV can justify. I maintain that WP:BLP does apply, but will seek further clarification from outside editors. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On whether most articles about the event mention Prager - Its nice that you can use Google, but what I suggested was to look at the sources provided in the article. Where did you get "searches show that only about 10-20%"? Is there some Google tool-bar calculator I'm unaware of that gave you that? If you had been participating in making this article at the time you would have seen that the overwhelming majority of the news coverage mentioned Prager. Please look at the sources.--Wowaconia (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on using Google as a yardstick try entering  Ellison Prager  ; it brings up 84,500 hits.--Wowaconia (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, just reviewing the sources given doesn't tell us anything, because the sources were used to support the previous verison of the article.
 * Relevant Google News searches:

&lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting comments: Applicability of BLP & NPOV policy

 * 1) Does WP:BLP, especially #Criticisms, apply to this article in the same manner it would to Keith Ellison?
 * 2) Does the current article, in both structure and content, devote proper weight to the views of Dennis Prager?

Comments
I don't think WP:BLP standards apply. I agree that too much weight is given to Prager. This article is unreadable and unusable (except, perhaps, the lede) thereby doing a disservice to the subject. No one (unless they are writing their doctoral thesis on the topic) will ever read it -- this is not an encyclopedia article. If there was consensus, I would be happy to take the task of whittling this article down to five pages (if that) vs. the current 35. &#8756; Therefore | talk 06:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I interpet this article as a spinout of Keith Ellison, and according to WP:SPINOUT,

If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies. *
 * So, I think WP:BLP applies. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * * Full disclosure; I wrote that myself, but I noted the change on talk and it's stood for three months. It was a rephrase of an essentially similar paragraph.


 * You make a valid point but this is one step away from Ellison's bio and therefore would have a different standard. JFK requires WP:BLP rules but the Bay of Pigs Invasion uses a different set. Both require the core policies of Wikipedia. But this is academic -- whoever placed the RfC, could you please specify which elements unique to WP:BLP are not being followed here. As a (serious) aside, I can't see how much harm this article can do to Ellison as it will not be read -- it is twice the length of the Bay of Pigs article and 1/100 as riveting. Paraphrasing is a core art of all encyclopedias, news articles, journals, Wikipedia, etc. &#8756; Therefore | talk 08:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I agree with Eleland's comments in the talk section titled "unbalanced". There are plenty of standards outside of BLP that support his position particularly WP:UNDUE. This article is too (too) long which not only exceeds any standard of notability but violates WP:MOS. I also support Natalie's comments in "Length and detail of article". I would be willing to pare down this article (radically) but not without some agreement from the main editors such as Wowaconia and Eleland as I am loathe to get into contentious edit struggles let alone wasting my time. &#8756; Therefore | talk 08:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On question 1, here's the very first line of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." It applies to all pages that contain material about living people, not just those that are biographies. So, yes, BLP rules would apply to this page.

On question 2: I agree with User:Therefore, far too much weight is given to Prager. He's only one person, but this article focuses so heavily on what he said and reactions to it, it may as well be called 'Dennis Prager Qu'ran controversy'. Clearly this is inappropriate. This article is also too long, and should be drastically cut down - its length should reflect the proper historical significance and context of its subject, and by that standard, it should probably be at least 90% shorter than it is now. To be honest, I'm wondering whether to nominate this article for deletion - I'm not sure the event it describes is even that notable enough to deserve its own page. It might be, but if it is going to stay, it will have to be made much shorter. Terraxos (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How much WP:BLP applies to Ellison or Prager? How much of their being mentioned is as WP:V sources? -- SEWilco (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a number of segments as per the consensus above. Down from 103kb to 56kb--Wowaconia (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But you deleted everyone who wasn't Prager. WTF!? The article was too long and contained too much information about Prager. Now you've fixed one problem while making the other much worse. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted overdeletion. Size is not that important.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is slanted - very slanted - as an anti-Prager article. Look, Prager is obviously very wrong, but because this is an encyclopedia, that's a view that people should be able to draw on their own, not have shoved down their throats. Every single time this article presents anything from his story it immediately provides a contradictory argument. Properly formed, this article would:


 * Open with a summary
 * Present Prager's story
 * Provide critical viewpoints
 * Provide supporting viewpoints
 * Provide Ellison's reaction
 * Describe the aftermath
 * List sources, external links, etc
 * Hopefully we'll get there. As a starting point, I don't think people care what every pundit on earth thought of the story. Leave Carlson and Savage, the rest should go.--CastAStone//(talk) 05:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This will not happen without agreement from (say) User:SEWilco who believes that "size isn't important" contrary to the Wikipedia guideline that size does matter. Other authors have prohibited ownership issues. If this goes to mediation, uninvolved editors will unanimously agree to condense. Arbitration will come to the same conclusion. However, this is a dead issue of a contrived controversy that has devolved into an unreadable vanity page. I recommend removing the link to this screed from the Keith Ellison (politician) article and be done with it. The topic is covered in the Ellison article effectively and sufficiently. I would support an AfD based on the temporary notability of this issue and that the Elison article covers it competently. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say "size isn't important" in Talk nor edit summaries. What's in your head is not in the text.  -- SEWilco (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Per : "Size is not that important" -- sorry, I left off the "that". My comment stands. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're letting your comment sit there. It doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Any guesses why the preceding person thought Carlson and Savage were the only relevant people who should comment?  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:BLP standards apply. Raggz (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw 4 highly notable names on the list: Carlson, Savage, Page, and Dershowitz. I picked one on each side, 2 avowed conservatives with differing viewpoints presents a nice contrast. 80% at a minimum of that list should go.--CastAStone//(talk) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is This Article Necessary?
This is gigantic, and all over a tempest in a teapot. It could easily be reduced to a paragraph in some other article.142.232.98.112 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wikipedical (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.116.10 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Qur& → Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress – Quran is more common (Koran is a distant second). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and because the root Wikipedia article is at "Quran". (I would prefer either the English name "Koran" or the transliteration "Qurʾān" rather than a lazy journalistic hybrid but OFW.)  By the way, both the proposed title and the current title are a little unwieldy.  Any ways to shave a few words off?  —  AjaxSmack   15:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange Article
1) Way too much about Dennis Prager. 2) Way too slanted against Prager -- much Schadenfreude at Prager's mistakes. 3) You have enough material here for an article on the Bible and the oath of office. That should probably be a separate article, and the material on Ellison and the Koran pruned down to a manageable size. 4) Posted this before I noticed that there's also way too much about Dennis Prager on this page as well.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Malik Zulu Shabazz
Removed the new black panther response. It is clearly used for WP:POINTY purposes. The New Black Panther party is a small fringe group with no notability. Including their position on anything in any article gives their opinion WP:UNDUE weight. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Major edit
The article is a mess. It is too long and contains much superfluous information. The article should not serve as a catalog for every editorial piece that has been written about the controversy. Especially not that the event is a thing of the past, it should probably be cut up. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed many sections in the article that were superfluous. There were (are) many sections where a single sentence would have sufficed. More cleaning up is required. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070128040659/http://blogs.usatoday.com:80/ondeadline/2006/12/quran_controver.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/quran_controver.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927131155/http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2007/Jan/984.html to http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2007/Jan/984.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211214050/http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=11041812060944420 to http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=11041812060944420
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192272498

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Chief of the Rare Book and Special Collections Division
As of December 2017 it appears it is still Mark Dimunation. If it ever changes we will need to update this article. Should probably check this link once a year or so:

https://www.loc.gov/rr/rarebook/contact.html

©Geni (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYN in Use of other text section
This section provides a primary quote from Prager ("tradition that has been unbroken since George Washington") and then provides several apparent counterexamples to his claim. To avoid violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN, we need a reliable secondary source which makes this point. I cannot find one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)