Talk:Jeff Sessions

Initial comments

I removed the phrase "[cautious toward]...foreign trade." in the Political Career section. The sentence implied that Republicans, who have been the only strong proponents of free trade, were generally "cautious toward trade." Furthermore, Mr. Sessions voted for CAFTA (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00209) earlier this year. Although he has a mixed bag with other measures, (yes to Singapore, no the Chile, 'cautious' seems like a perjorative term.

I noticed that the CQ profile in the links at the bottom of the page (http://www.cqpress.com/ls/pia/pdfs/107/aljr-2000.pdf) says that Sessions' federal judiciary nomination failed 9-9, whereas the Wikipedia article claims the vote was 10-8. The cited source (a TNR article) does agree with the 10-8 vote, but it's hosted off-site and I don't have access to TNR online. Someone should figure out what the vote actually was, or at least decide which source is more authoritative. --Dustingc 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

I totally disagree that Sessions drew "considerable controversy" about his remarks to John Kyl after Katrina. One short article in Time magazine is NOT a controversy. I changed "considerable" to "minor," but really that part hardly qualifies as controversy at all. I live in the Katrina-affected part of Alabama, and never heard a word about it from any other news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.191.158 (talk • contribs)

I've removed that sentence, and done some other cleanup to make the section more neutral in language. John Broughton 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The New Republic article about "Jeff Sessions makes children cry" cites an unnamed source, and does not link to any audio or video, but TNR itself is considered reliable (enough) for Wikipedia standards. A recent editor had questioned why that section was included at all. 4RunnerRebel (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing stuff

Wikipedia has norms for removing text that cannot be verified. The norm is NOT to simply delete text because "no source was cited". If that were the criteria, at least half of what is wikipedia should be removed, even though most of that WAS accurate. It's an unfortunate truth that a lot of contributions to wikipedia were unsourced. That doesn't make them wrong.

There are at least three acceptable alternatives: (1) do a google or other search, and state in the edit summary that a search failed to find support; also check any sources for the article and say that they also did not support the text; (2) post a comment on the talk/discussion page that you propose to remove the text, and what (if anything) you've done to try to verify it; or (3) use the "citation needed" template to mark it as needing further work.

Doing (1) gives people confidence that someone is not trying to make an article POVish by deleting selective stuff; (2) gives a lot more notice to others that something may be removed; and (3) is probably best because it lets readers decide if they believe (apparently) unsourced info, while suggesting to others who want to improve the article that they could help by finding a source. John Broughton 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sessions' opponents accused him of "gross insensitivity” on racial issues." Who said this? It's got quotes, but NO SOURCE. I didn't add the line in the first place, so IMHO it's up to the person who added the line to find the source. You can't possibly believe that line isn't just a POV injection into the page, can you? I'm a constituent of Sessions, and I don't hear about "gross insensitivity on racial issues." I don't add that, though, because that's just first-person knowledge (per Wikipedia rules). Sounds to me like the "gross insensitivity" is first-person knowledge, if anything. Re the TNR link, FINE. I'll be happy to add links extolling the virtues of Senator Sessions, if that is going to be the standard. I won't play reversion wars, but this is ridiculous. (sigh) --Beth C. 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, what's the point in the TNR article being there? "The Senator Worse than Lott?" Come ON, if that's not a "reliable source" without an agenda...??? What's the purpose in it being there, except to point out to the reader that some guy at TNR thinks he's "worse than Lott?" I'm sure someone at NRO or somewhere has written what a f'n great guy he is, and I'd be willing to bet that adding it would set off alarm bells all over Wikipedia. Sorry, I am extremely frustrated here and this one little article--one that unlike so many others does not have a mile-long heated discussion page--rubs me the wrong way. It's likely to go unnoticed and unchallenged otherwise, and someone's got to make it fair. Sticking in an link like that doesn't add to the utility of the article any more than a link to cheerleading for Sessions. I call foul, and if my objection is against Wikipedia rules, then as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia rules are flawed. --Beth C. 09:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search on "gross insensitivity" and "Jeff Sessions"; the second result was from CQ, already listed in this article. I just added the link (somewhat redundantly) so that this won't come up again. (And, again, the larger issue isn't whether something should be removed or not, it's the PROCESS that is used to remove it.)

No, it is NOT POV to cite the views of opponents of an individual, if those opponents are important (as was the case here, where Sessions' nomination was rejected). It WOULD be POV (unacceptable) if the article said "Sessions was rejected because of his gross insensitivity to racial issues". But it didn't.

I'm sorry that the title of a source bothers you. The best way to deal with that, as you noted, is to add other sources for the article that are appropriate (e.g., newspaper articles saying that Sessions is doing a great job), and let the reader decide what to believe. Wikipeda rules do NOT specify that only unbiased/neutral sources will be used or cited, but rather only that FACTS and objective information from those sources be used in articles. John Broughton 12:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going from the guidelines here. "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source." CAUTION, presumably because if it is factual there will be non-partisan sources as well. Also here: "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident." Now I'm fully aware that this guideline is not a strict rule, and it's routinely ignored in Wikipedia, but it doesn't make it right. Surely you understand why someone who disagrees with the author's view would object? Why inject partisanship into the article? Is it that important to you? It's not the title, it's the title and the content and the one-sided position of the publication and the writer. I fail to see how it adds to the overall picture of Senator Sessions, when there is plenty of other material in the (Wiki) article to make that point. Frankly, the Sessions (wiki) article does NOT deal with the subject in a "fair and balanced" manner (I'm sure the phrase I used will be sneered at; nevertheless, I expect "fair and balanced"). And considering the fact that Sessions is a "living person," I'll add this to my objection as well. "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent 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." --Beth C. 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your stated presumption that there will (usually? always?) be non-partisan sources as well as partisan ones, and so, by implication, partisan sources should rarely if ever be used.

I'm glad you're looking at wikipedia policies. One problem is that you're still talking in generalities and personal interpretations - how exactly does one measure fair and balanced? disproportionate amount of space? Another problem is that you cite policy on the amount of space given to "critics". But you misread the wikipedia policy. It's about including critic's words (for example, "proponents of Intelligent Design are creationists in disguise"), NOT to citing factual matters (as in the prosecution by Sessions of three civil rights workers - that paragraph isn't "criticism", it's a statement of what happened; if it is too negative because it omits certain facts, then those should be added for balance). The words/views/opinions of critics of ID can be cited because those critics are not a tiny minority, while someone who disputes (say) the theory of gravity shouldn't be quoted at all. Nor should someone who says (for example) that Sessions is a reincarnation of a southern plantation owner.

So far, to get to specifics, you've (a) objected to a quotation from a CQ Press source, a quotation that is absolutely necessary to understand an important incident in Sessions life, and (b) proposed to delete the external link to a lengthy article that has lots of facts, but is clearly anti-Sessions. Do you not understand what the purpose of external sources is? They offer readers more information than can possibly be included in wikipedia articles, except if there were massive copyright violations. A reader who wants only "unbiased" sources is pretty naive - an official Senate biography is going to skip over inconvient facts like dropping out of college or being divorced or business failures, so even that is not fully unbiased.

If you have other specific objections to specific wording in the article, this would be a great place to discuss them. And if you have material you want to ADD to the article, please have at it. John Broughton 12:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(Removing indent) My thought is that where non-partisan sources exist, they should be used in favor of partisan ones. I have no problem with the CQ inclusion whatsoever; if the link was there before, I apparently didn't see it because it wasn't with the quote, I guess (?). I never questioned the statement about the prosecution by Sessions of three civil rights workers. What I take issue with is the "worse than Lott" business. YES, Sessions was criticized, and that's in the CQ source, and again, I don't take issue with that. I certainly don't expect his prosecutorial record to be erased, either! I think you may be assuming that I'm trying to "sanitize" the article or make it a campaign brochure, but I assure you I am not. I suppose the article is, if anything, far from complete, in that it's lacking any balance. I frankly haven't had time yet to add to it, so I think that if it's not flagged NPOV, it should be annotated some other way. (I'm not familiar yet with "incomplete" flagging, if such a thing exists.)

I may be speaking in "generalities," but if so, I submit that any other reader would look at it in a general way as well. Wikipedia isn't for scholars, it's for people wanting general information. The article in any encyclopedia should give the readers an informed view, without skewing their view one way or another. Obviously people who follow political issues will note a lack of balance, but those who don't will get other impressions. For example, there are articles on certain subjects about which you or I know almost nothing, right? If I read it, I expect it to be authoritative, correct, and free of bias. And not devoid of stating the controversies, but with both sides of the controversies.

But "worse than Lott?" I can't find anything that directly contradicts that particular article, and from what I can see, it's purely opinion. I'm not a TNR subscriber, and it's subscriber-only content after the first paragraph--and that paragraph is an anti-Lott rant; it doesn't even address Sessions except in the title, "worse than Lott"--who is portrayed basically as "the reincarnation of a plantation owner" (your words, not the article's). Should I have to hunt down something that says "no he's not a racist?" Maybe nobody has reason to even say such a thing--not because they'd agree with the TNR/Sarah Wildman premise of his being a racist, but because it simply isn't considered a valid argument. Just a quick scan on the internet shows some left-wing bloggers who used the TNR article as a "source" to "prove" that Sessions is a rabid racist. That tells me the article is clearly an attack piece, and doesn't add anything but venom to that which was already stated in the CQ piece. You know what I found countering it? Freepers. Obviously not source material. It's not even referenced by anyone all that much. So why is THAT considered an important outside link? And should one be expected to read everything written about Sessions to see if anyone happened to mention something on his behalf in that regard?

Do you see where I'm coming from? --Beth C. 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the title of the TNR article. I think it would have been more defensible if the title had ended with a question mark.

I've changed the link to point to full version of that article (you deleted this link, by the way). As you can see, the TNR article does list a lot of facts to make its case; whether you agree or not with the conclusion implicit in the title, the article IS useful. And the source IS considered reliable under wikipedia criteria. Moveover, there is no wikipedia policy that forbids citing a source if the article does not include other sources that balance it out. (Wikipedia policy is focused on the content of wikipedia articles - and, in this case, there are NO opinion statements from the TNR article in the Sessions wikipedia article, as far as I can tell.)

I also understand your frustration with what you see as an article where much of the information comes from sources unfriendly to Sessions. All I can say is that wikipedia articles are an accumulation of edits. The reality is that when editors are unpaid and essentially unidentifiable, many of them are motivated by other than a desire to have completely fair and balanced articles. What is a good wikipedia article as of July 2006 probably started out as a short, unbalanced, and quite possibly biased piece. The best way to deal with the situation is (a) not to assume that wikipedia articles are unbiased, and (b) to improve articles by adding information, tinkering with language so that it is more neutral, removing trivia, adding sources. In short, the solution is to get into the specifics. John Broughton 18:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of order: "not to assume that wikipedia articles are unbiased" - THAT is why I say it does not represent a neutral point of view. It doesn't. You may consider it a "good article," but I don't. You and the user "Artificial Intelligence" have both attacked me personally as having an "agenda," when I have used the NPOV tag or edited articles. Don't try wikilawyering me; I don't have the time to spend all day editing all the articles here when I see bias, but I will point out that bias as it exists in this article and the other one in which we have a very stark difference of opinion. Obviously someone needs to come in and resolve it, because 1) I don't have time, as I said, and 2) anything I do will be attacked by you or your "Artificial Intelligence" ally as being agenda-driven. For now, I am tagging this article because it DOES need more work to make it NPOV.

I think people who "have an agenda" can do perfectly good things in wikipedia if they follow the rules, and are reasonable. I certainly have biases; I do my best to overcome them when editing.

I didn't say that this article is a good one, and I apologize for the misunderstanding: I said that a good article (pick one, any one) probably started out as a poor article, and improved over time by ADDITIONS.

There is no higher authority in wikipedia that is going to swoop in and fix what you consider to be bias. There are only folks like you and me who can discuss specific wording that should be changed to improve clarity, and add to the article to improve them. Sorry.

You seem outraged that the article is - in your eyes - so biased, and you seem to think that this should be obvious to almost everyone else, from which it follows that those who don't agree it's biased are biased themselves. I can't argue with that logic; all I can say is that you're never going to get changes that you want to articles by posting general charges of bias and other complaints on wikipedia talk pages. The wikipedia process is to do small things (edits), and only when editors can't agree on those small things, where both parties think the matter is important, are various processes available to resolve the situation. John Broughton 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove some of Neutrality's additions to the federal judgeship part. Some of the additions are valuable -- particularly some of the direct quotes from Figures. Also helpful is the clarification about the 10-8 vote vs. the 9-9 vote. However, in my view, this section is now weighted way too heavily with respect to the rest of the article. If we really want this much detail, maybe make a separate article for this section? Given that the nomination was one event in Sessions' political career -- granted, a significant event, but still just one -- I think this section is should be about the same length and level of detail as the rest of the entry. I mean, for that matter, we could have 6-8 paragraphs of witness and stakeholder testimony for a) Sotomayor, b) immigration, c) the bank bailout, etc... What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.210.87 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hispanics

The survey about Sessions' Hispanic support in Alabama is a little ridiculous. If you check the actual sample numbers in the poll that was cited, the sample size for Hispanics was exactly nine people! That's not statistically significant, and it's not worth mentioning on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.235.192 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 July 2006

I'm agreeable to it being removed, but I'd like to see what others have to say. John Broughton 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's not even close to the most notable thing about his stance on illegal immigration. And it's true, the inclusion of the statistic would lead one to think that's a notable point. Sorta undue weight, in a sense. Most notable thing for Sessions in this issue is his increased visibility and esp. support among Republican voters (nationwide, not just in Alabama). I don't have time to research/write something about that in the near future or revise that section, but I'd agree with 66.168.235.192's point. I'll try to get to it later. --Beth C. 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since no one objected to its removal, it's gone. John Broughton 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "He is a prominent racist and bigot."

Deleted as propaganda/editorializing. quite probably true (in fact that would be my position on him as well) but, the argument is not developed, the argument is not supported, specifics are not cited. This is nothing but a personal view and does not belong here in this form.JTGILLICK (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Brief exchange with Chuck Grassley

Was this a significant event? It seems like nothing more than a procedural matter in the Senate, and Grassley seems to be the main actor. What's the point? Qqqqqq (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is still here, and it still doesn't seem notable to me. If anything, it should go in the article about Grassley; it really had very little to do with Sessions. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sessions and racism

Source Racist Statement:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102

http://newspirates.com/?p=3460 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope Associated Press and Foxnews are reliable sources:

Associated Press cited:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sessions_vs_sotomayor

Foxnews cited:

http://www.fox2now.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-sessions-vs-sotomayor,0,336299.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Racist Argument was support by Foxnews and Associated Press: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press cited:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sessions_vs_sotomayor

Racist:

Foxnews:

http://www.fox2now.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-sessions-vs-sotomayor,0,336299.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Senator blocked by bias claims now raises them

AP – Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, questions Supreme Court …

Play Video Video:'Extremely Troubling'

FOX News Play Video Video:Sotomayor vows to use even hand in judging cases AP By LAURIE KELLMAN,

Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jul 14, 6:28 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican equating Sonia Sotomayor's supposed empathy with racial bias, was blocked from the federal bench himself two decades ago for making insensitive remarks about the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP.

The third-term Alabama senator, this week at least, is the face of a party without a clear leader. His role strikes some as hypocritical. But arguably, no one knows more intimately what a political minefield race has been for the GOP.

Nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the federal bench, Sessions, then a federal prosecutor, was attacked by liberals for "gross insensitivity" on matters of race. Notably, he is reported to have joked that the KKK — a violent white supremacist group during much of its history — wouldn't be so bad but for their use of marijuana. The NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, he allegedly said, were communist-inspired and tried to force civil rights down people's throats.

Sessions' nomination never made it to the Senate floor. His home-state senator, the late Howell Heflin, voted against him.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have removed a lengthy section of the article that was quoted in full, above, because of copyright concerns, and because, more importantly, it's about Sessions today, and about Sessions and Sotomayor, not about Sessions' past history of (let's say, for the moment, alledged) racism.

More to the point - I removed the above text from the middle of an older discussion (2006), above, because Wikipedia is not a debating society. The purpose of article talk pages is to improve articles. Without looking, I assume that the article has changed considerably in the past three years. Anything posted on this page, today, needs to be about problems with the article today. And the best way to improve the article is to actually suggest changes to it - specific wording that should be added, deleted, or changed.

So, what's wrong with the article, and how should it be improved? (And yes, I agree that the AP and Foxnews are generally reliable sources; sometimes they make mistakes, but the presumption should be that when they say that something happened, it in fact did, and that it was newsworthy.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the term "alleged" used in reference to Session's earlier statements. These are direct quotations, and Sessions has _never_ contested that he made these statments. He only argued that he a) said these comments in jest and b) they were taken out of context. As such, there is not need for the term "alleged," as it is flat out incorrect. User anonymous and I like it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.166.11 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Sessions denied the both the specific allegations, and the more general accusations of racism. See for example http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/you-cant-dwell-on-those-things-sen-jeff-sessions-r-alarecently-told-the-examiners-byron-york-if-i-had-be.html According to ABC News, "in testimony, Sessions pushed back against the charges and denied any racial animus." Also, the word "alleged" is used because it is the right word. If I say you did something, I am alleging it. If you are later proven to have done something, that qualifier can be removed, but that was not the case here. Yes, they are direct quotations, but not direct quotations from Sessions himself. They are quotations from other individuals, with no written or audio or any other kind of proof. 4RunnerRebel (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm?

"Sessions opposes approval of the Uniting American Families Act. In June 2009, during testimony by a 42-year-old Filipino woman who was scheduled to be deported in April 2009 despite being the mother of two American children and having a relationship for 23 years with an American woman, Sessions was audibly heard relaying to one of his aides, "Enough with the histrionics" when the woman's 12-year-old son began crying during the testimony."

Am I reading that correctly? Was this really a same-sex relationship, or did someone vandalize the article? If it isn't vandalism, then the article really needs to specify which woman they are talking about when they refer to "{her} 12-year-old son", because right now it doesn't and it's ambiguous. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed this section a bit because the New Republic blog post (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/04/jeff-sessions-makes-children-cry.aspx) does not attribute the claim to anyone by name. Since there is no audio or video evidence of this comment, it should be made clear that this statement is an allegation. BTW, the son belongs to the 42-year-old Filipino woman, and it is a same-sex relationship. 4RunnerRebel

There is NOTHING here about Jeff Sessions being gay? How is this possible?

Reminds me of Roy Cohen's protestations that gay men are men who have no clout - if you have clout, you obviously can't be gay. The fact that there is NOTHING in this bio about Jeff Sessions being a gay man tells me Wikipedia is having a bit of a problem with the question of Session's gayness. Wikipedians can do better than this when it comes to basic research. C'mon people - let's not pretend.

I get money there

What exactly does Senator Sessions mean by that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9y4tqq3idk

I think (and hope) that it is intended to be a repeat of this:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/political_skinny_jeff_sessions_1.html In an e-mail, Sessions spokesman Stephen Boyd called Thompson's assertions "beyond ridiculous," adding that Thompson has acknowledged that the Lexington Institute receives funding from Boeing.

Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)