Talk:Keith Ellison

Ellison did not attempt to go to Israel in 2008-2009

The article claims that Ellison attempted to enter Israel during the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict, but was denied entry. In the video that was cited for this, Ellison explains that he was not allowed into GAZA during his 2007 trip to Israel. He was, however, allowed entry into the rest of Israel. I will edit the page accordingly. -MJR

How can he be a lawyer if he does not have a license to practice law?

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/loomer-exposes-keith-ellison-for-not-having-law-license-msm-ignores/

Lexusaztec (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Colloquially the term "lawyer" can refer to someone who is not currently licensed, who has gone to law school. Lawyer does not necessarily mean "barred in a particular state." https://www.lawyeredu.org/attorney-vs-lawyer.html Furthermore, the Attorney General need not be an attorney. That is not a legal requirement for the job. And lastly, Mr. Ellison can reactivate his legal license by paying a fee, as he is inactive not disbarred. --Thalia42 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Domestic Violence Allegations Comment

There's been two reverts on WP:BLP grounds on additions of domestic violence allegations. However, the story has now been reported by the local alt weekly and the local NPR affiliate. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, the allegations and denial should be included. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@ErikTheBikeMan: I appreciate you opening this thread rather than reinserting the content without discussing it. This is highly salacious and we should tread very carefully. I will hold off on making any other comment on this until others join in the conversation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand the salacious nature of the content, but at the very least, the Congressman's denial seems relevant. Additionally, MPR's article seems fairly in-depth and confirms the existence of the text messages, albeit no video (which is probably relevant in and of itself). ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The story is now in Politico, so it cannot be ignored. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. What was first sourced to the Facebook post has now made it into the mainstream press. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we can wait a bit longer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: How do you figure? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no policy that requires waiting. What you can do is to add the template {{current|section|date=August 2018}}, but that's it. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and most applicably here WP:BLP. So yeah. There is. Are, in fact. Look, if this turns out to have legs, and gets picked up by more credible sources, I'll be the first to put it in. But that hasn't happened yet - politico by itself is not enough. Additionally, from what I know, this story has been circulating around MN for months, press has actually dug into it and could not find independent verification. This is why it hasn't been published until the twitter thing.

There is absolutely no reason for why this must be in this bio in right this very moment. I am specifically invoking BLP here. Please don't restore it for now. Wikipedia will not vaporize itself if we give this a day or two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think you'll have much luck with that at BLPN. 37.48.125.46 (talk)

You talking to me Proxy IP or BarbadosKen? At any rate - how about we actually try it at BLPN first? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:BLP does not allow removal of well referenced negative information. If you continue to remove, I will report you for edit warring. BarbadosKen (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. Watch out for that BLP BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You have been reported at WP:AN3RR. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Your statement "politico by itself is not enough" is not supported by policy. Politico passes WP:RS, and that's all that is required for placement in the article. BarbadosKen (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No. That's a necessary not a sufficient condition.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that WP:Recentism is NOT policy, and does not preclude placing new information in articles. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is "an explanatory supplement" to policy, so yeah, it's policy. The very first bullet point is regarding "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens." which is what happens here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RECENTISM literally says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Please stop misrepresenting what RECENTISM actually says. That is gaslighting. Politrukki (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not what "gaslighting" actually means, and that is not what I am doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

How so? Unless you want to further wikilawyer that your false claim of RECENTISM being policy was not gaslighting because RECENTISM is not a policy. See the example "misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means". By the way, you still have not said what the supposed BLP violation is. Please be specific. Politrukki (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is a reference in the Washington Post. Here is a reference in CBS News. Please drop it. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just give it a few days. There's no fire that needs to be put out right this very moment. BLP applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The content that was added in this edit correctly describes the allegation as an allegation and does not violate any of the core content policies (NPOV, V, NOR) referenced in WP:BLP. Ellison is a public figure and the allegations (reliable sources are treating this as an uncorroborated allegation, but have not specifically cast doubt on the allegation) are well documented, therefore the content, with Ellison's denial, definitely belongs to the article. As nobody has explained how the content supposedly violates BLP, I do not see any good-faith BLP objections. NOTNEWS is clearly not applicable because this is not about routine reporting. The fact that Ellison has denied the abuse makes this content even more DUE. Politrukki (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If the content is to be added (I don't mind), then it needs to be noted that numerous news outlets were approached with the allegations and that they decided not to run them because they were not considered credible enough to run with. Here is for example Minnesota Public Radio[1]:

* More than 100 text and Twitter messages between Ellison and Karen Monahan, shared by Karen Monahan and reviewed by MPR News, show the two communicating after their breakup for months, coordinating her getting her things from his house. The tenor of the conversation at times was friendly, with the two acknowledging concern and care for one another, and at other times more combative over the terms of their break-up and the emotional pain Karen Monahan said he caused her. In one exchange, Karen Monahan tells Ellison she plans to write about their "journey" in a chapter in her book and Ellison warns her not to. "Horrible attack on my privacy, unreal," he wrote in one message. There is no evidence in the messages reviewed by MPR News of the alleged physical abuse.

It would be a BLP violation (as far as I'm concerned) to report the allegations without this context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement about adding context. When I wrote the paragraph, I gave as much context as I was aware of. Since I have been accused of 3 reverts, I don't want to risk a block, so for now I won't touch the article. BarbadosKen (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not is not an example of "not considered credible enough to run with". The sources I cited did not say the allegations were not credible and I did not pick the sources selectively. I now see that Vox (which is usually a decent source when they are not conflating news and opinion) cites a Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel saying "story had been circulating in MN, and not held up under media scrutiny, so no stories ran". However, the Washington Post news story I cited does not mention anything like that even though Weigel contributed to the report. It looks like AP treats this as a new allegation: "The allegation first surfaced Saturday night ..."

When I was reviewing the sources, the sentence "There is no evidence in the messages reviewed by MPR News of the alleged physical abuse." did pause me, but I also noticed that many sources did not consider it worth mentioning. Moreover, the conclusion does not even refute any specific allegation that was in our article because our article did not claim that text messages are a proof abuse. When I restored the content and did some trimming, I focused on laying out the main facts that are unlikely to change, and being succinct in order to avoid giving UNDUE attention to the latest controversy.

Whether the analysis of text messages should be included in the article is a separate topic and I would not vehemently oppose including something of it if someone makes a decent proposal that is not too lengthy, but omitting the analysis is not a BLP violation. Politrukki (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I just removed the paragraph again. This entire thing is based on a social media post by a family member. The reports are not credible substantiated, no charges have been filed, and there's no indication that the police are even involved. This is just mudslinging at this point, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to get in the middle of it. Bradv 13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the specific BLP violation you are claiming? Could you substantiate, citing reliable sources, how the reports (I think you you mean "allegations"?) are not credible? Monahan told at least three friends of the alleged incident "in the months after she had moved out of Ellison's apartment". [2] Politrukki (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I should have said "substantiated". All of the news articles are based on a single social media post, without any evidence or police investigation. The only thing that's possibly newsworthy here is the subsequent denial. At any rate, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so it's completely appropriate to wait and see what comes of this. Bradv 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Coming from BLP/N, as it is merely allegations and yet to have had any impact on his career, we should wait and see if it is still the subject of coverage a week or so from the event. While technically not a BLP violation (as a public figure, and the sourcing, while ultimately from a blog post, still covered in some reasonable RSes), the spirit of BLP, with RECENTISM and NOT#NEWS suggest we wait to see if this is a real story or just random politic mud being slung around. --Masem (t) 13:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have witnessed the ugly side of recentism in Wikipedia several times when sources including The New York Times, Politico, The Hill, and BBC have made drastic changes to the source without being transparent about it, but I would argue that the recentism argument (that includes following BLPSTYLE) is more persuasive in discussing whether to include hot takes instead of just focusing on hard facts. Politrukki (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• We go with reliable sources, right? I see this argument used daily, hourly, when it comes to conservative and Trump-related articles in Wikipedia. The same applies with the Ellison article, does it not? There are reliable sources reporting it. As long as we use the word "alleged" in relation to the claims of abuse (and at this time they do seem to be more than just claims since there is a video of it happening - but that's ultimately for the lawyers and courts to sort out), I see no reason why this wouldn't be in either the Personal life section or a "Controversies" section of the article. I say Keep the content. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  There's no evidence that a video exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  Seems there is. Somewhere. "The allegation first surfaced on Saturday night from Karen Monahan after her son, Austin Monahan, alleged in a Facebook post that he had seen hundreds of angry text messages from Ellison, some threatening his mother. He also wrote he had viewed a video in which Ellison dragged Monahan off the bed by her feet. Monahan, a Minneapolis political organizer, said via Twitter that what her son posted was "true." [3] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  I've already read that. Just because someone says a video exists doesn't mean it exists. We're all still waiting to see that Michelle Obama "whitey" video, after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  "Just because someone says a video exists doesn't mean it exists." Yes, of course. No idea what the MO "whitey" video is supposed to be. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  Apparently now the accuser is saying she "lost" the video.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  How convenient. You'd think she'd have made many backup copies of such an important video.

  @Winkelvi: The idea that there was a video of Michelle Obama railing about "whitey" got a bunch of press in 2008. No video ever saw the light of day, because it doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  "How convenient" Seems to me that if we're not putting anything yet in the article because WP:NOTNEWS and the like, we shouldn't be speculating on whether or not this is an authentic allegation. And we sure shouldn't be victim-shaming and blaming and trying to turn this alleged victim of assault into the villain. Time to stop, don't you think? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  Time to stop running with every flimsy allegation, yes. We should have a pretty high bar for things like this. A weak allegation like this going public the weekend before the election smells of dirty politics, not a true #MeToo story. But therein lies the point: how do we know for sure? What damage do we do if we run with a false allegation? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  According to CNN, Monahan says the video was "misplaced"[4], not lost, but has refused to produce the video anyway. But CNN also reported that Monahan's friends corroborate that Monahan told them about the allegation long time ago: "Three friends of Monahan, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of backlash, told CNN she had confided in them about the bed incident in the months after she had moved out of Ellison's apartment." Politrukki (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue has come up during Ellison's run for attorney general and that's the section it belongs in. Unfortunately it has not yet been created. Since the primary is tomorrow, I suggest we create a section and include the assault allegation there. TFD (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a reasonable proposal. However, this is not the first time Ellison has faced similar misconduct allegations as Vox pointed out. There is also this dicussion from 2006: Talk:Keith Ellison/Archive 1#Alexander's Allegations Politrukki (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The hand-wringing and agonizing over adding these allegations, which have been widely reported by every major news outlet in the country, as well as international outlets like Reuters and the BBC, is increasingly looking like a strategy to run out the clock ahead of an election. If that's what's happening here, then Wikipedia's credibility is being seriously damaged. I see arguments for non-inclusion like "it's suspicious that this is coming out close to the primaries" and attacking the victim's character by using scare quotes in reference to her statement that she lost the video. This is all irrelevant. The allegations have been made, have been widely reported by the most reputable names in news, and Ellison has issued a formal statement in response. It's not Wikipedia's job to assess the veracity of the allegations. Follow the damn policies. The administrator who gold-locked this article should be admonished, and the article returned to a blue-lock status for the time being. Imagine the outcry if someone gold-locked the Donald Trump article after the release of the Access Hollywood tape because it was too close to an election. Wikipedia is (or at least shouldn't be) a Super PAC acting on behalf of Minnesota democrats. 2600:1012:B041:8C7B:E1A9:8FB2:CA00:66AA (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think I should be admonished for stopping an edit war the place to bring it up is at WP:ANI. ~ GB fan 21:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The offending users (BarbadosKen and Volunteer Marek), should have been warned, and if the warning was not heeded, then the users involved in the edit war should have been blocked for 24 hours, and much longer if the users had received previous sanctions for edit warring. Gold locking an article to prevent affecting the outcome of an election (under the guise of preventing a mild content dispute) is just not acceptable, and crying BLP is not an acceptable excuse for edit warring. If you insist on doubling down on your unilateral action, then yes I will file a report at ANI to rectify the situation. Although, something tells me that after the polls close in Minnesota, the gold lock will be mysteriously and quietly removed overnight, and the outrageously well-sourced media reporting will be re-inserted without objection. 2600:1012:B041:8C7B:E1A9:8FB2:CA00:66AA (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok dude with two edits who is threatening to "bring it up at ANI".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There were more than those two involved in the edit war. I decided that protection was appropriate after two additional editors became involved. The protection will automatically expire at 13:48, 16 August 2018. I will only remove it earlier than that if editors can come to an agreement on the content. ~ GB fan 23:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but I don't think there will be any more problems. 17,000 people viewed this scrubbed down article today and Ellison successfully weathered the storm and won his primary in spite of the bombshell. The Wikimedia Foundation/Think Progress/Net Roots isn't about to let something like credible wife-beating allegations get in the way of a democrat and power. I would add that I wasn't threatening anybody with anything. I think you deserve a trout, temporary blocks for the two edit warring users, and an unlock of the article (now that he won), and just leave it at that. But you're the administrator so I will just say good luck this season and I hope you guys get Mack. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:44B9:30AE:4955:CBAE (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You just don;t get it at all. You seem to believe that the protection of the article had something to do with political motivations, that couldn't be further from the truth. My actions were based on 4 editors going back and forth with content. Then there is the point that not a single editor that was involved in the edit war nor anyone that actually discussed the content ever brought up anything about protection being the wrong call. You are the only one that thinks protection was the wrong call. ~ GB fan 09:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The page protection was within administrative discretion. When a page is protected, it is always the The Wrong Version that gets protected. Always. The protection will expire soon, but I will not be the first one to reinstate the content. Politrukki (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Readers don't come to Wikipedia to read what was published in newspapers today or yesterday for that matter, but expect to find key information. It's difficult to assess what will have lasting significance and the approach is to err on the side of caution. This latest story may or may not be important, but we don't know yet. There are policies and guidelines in favor of the cautious approach such as recentism and what Wikipedia is not. TFD (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

there is the point that not a single editor that was involved in the edit war nor anyone that actually discussed the content ever brought up anything about protection being the wrong call. You are the only one that thinks protection was the wrong call. Although I (an editor involved in the edit war) did not complain, I did feel that a 72 hour lock was excessive. Although I do not know if the choice for 72 hours had anything to do with the elections, I think locking until the elections were over gives the impression that the lock was intended to protect Ellison. 24 hours should have been sufficient, and 48 would have been more than sufficient. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

TFD the procedure for political topics is to gather information from the newspapers and television, boil it down to the key takeaways, and then summarize it in the pages. Wikipedia is a news aggregate, in this regard. As soon as news broke about John Brennan's clearance getting revoked, an article from CNN (his employer) was sourced right away talking about how awful it is and an "unprecedented abuse of authority blah blah etc etc". There aren't any books about the Keith Ellison abuse allegations, so Wikipedia editors have to take the mainstream media reports and summarize them. Wikipedia is sort of the left's version of Drudge. It takes stories from lefty "news" companies like New York Times and CNN, then collects them for the reader in a digestible format. Nobody "erred on the side of caution" when the Access Hollywood tape broke. It went in Trump's page immediately. After Hillary collapsed on 9/11/16 and was "thrown into the van like a side of beef" (according to law enforcement eyewitnesses), every time someone tried to put it into the article it got immediately deleted, and still to this day readers are prohibited from learning about this seismic event in her campaign (though there is a side-splitting note about her "needing assistance" and "leaving the 9/11 memorial early" in her campaign article, which sounds like it was written by Jennifer Palmieri). So it's not about if we know how important the story is yet, it's whether or not the material will help Democrats win elections. That's the unwritten rule here, and it is not to be questioned. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A9FF:7B5D:C6A5:C519 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

I have fully protected the page for 3 days to allow editors time to discuss this and come up with a consensus. There is just to much edit warring on the article. ~ GB fan 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just continuing discussion here... one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that Minnesota's state primaries are tomorrow. The fact that this allegation hit the presses the weekend before the primaries should be suspicious to all of us. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that really matters, does it? Not in Wikipedia-years, anyway. We follow the sources. At least that's what I've been told numerous times. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's only suspicious if reliable sources explicitly say so. Which they don't, I believe. Monahan said "Me sharing my story has nothing to do with the primary election. It is never a good time for a survivor to share their story. If I waited a week later, it would become an issue between a Democrat and Republican." So there you go. See also Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations##WhyWomenDontReport. Politrukki (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Direct quotes of people in reliable sources are not ipso facto reliable. An article quoting Mel Gibson for example as saying that the Jews control Hollywood is not a reliable source for the assertion that they in fact control Hollywood. TFD (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

AP story

Many stories are blossoming in major publications, with a focus on Keith Ellison denies abuse allegations. These might be driven by an AP story. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it’s worth I came to this page to learn more about the allegations. You owe it to our readers to conform to wp:blp and put up appropriate content. Nowa (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources: Washington Post, CBS News, Newsweek, Fox News, New York Times, Star Tribune, CNN, The Hill, USA Today, Slate, NPR, Business Insider Agree with other editors that the allegations and denial should be included. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting towards including this in some form. But we need to make sure it's neutrally worded and provides proper context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so could you finally explain what your specific BLP objection was and how we should avoid such alleged BLP violations in the future? Politrukki (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't put in in the personal life section since we don't know if it actually happened. It is particularly undue since it makes up a third of the section. It rightfully belongs in the narrative about his run for AG, which is where it has arisen. TFD (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the relationship existed, so it does belong in the Personal life section. But we can certainly add the context for the circumstances under which the relationship became public. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

But the only thing about the relationship mentioned in the article is unproved. TFD (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's in dispute. So WP:NPOV requires that both sides' perspective be covered. Not covering it in the article is not the solution. BarbadosKen (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

IF we are to include this, it needs to be written in a neutral manner. So first, that means NOT saying that the allegation was confirmed, which is just false. Second, it needs context - for example the fact that the claim about the existence of the video was made but that then Monahan said she "lost" it. Etc. This is a textbook BLP issue. Please work out the precise wording here on talk before edit warring to get it into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your concern for the word "confirmed" has been noted and the word has been changed to "joined". BarbadosKen (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Precise wording

I've removed the section, as there is still some controversy over the precise wording, and this should be sorted on the talk page before it goes live. Here is what I removed:

After his divorce, Ellison had a romantic relationship with Karen Monahan. The relationship ended in 2016 and became public in August 2018, three days before the primary election for state attorney general, when Monahan's son posted on his social media account allegations that Ellison dragged Monahan off a bed by her feet while shouting profanities. Monahan later joined her son's allegations on her own social media accounts as well as in media interviews. Ellison denied the allegations. Monahan's son also claimed that a "two-minute video showing Ellison in a physical altercation with his mother" exists, but no such video became public.

Please make your comments here about this wording, or any proposed changes to it, rather than edit warring on the article. Bradv 12:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Too long per WP:DUE, and I don't think the claims about a video need to be mentioned at all at this point. Suggestion (with sourcing, obviously):

Three days before the primary election for state attorney general, the adult son of Ellison's ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan alleged on social media that Ellison once shouted at Monahan and dragged her off of a bed by her feet. Monahan later joined her son's allegations, which Ellison has denied.

VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 13 August 2018

change "motioned" to "moved" in the second sentence of the third paragraphed.

This is the correct verb in parliamentary procedure. It's either "made a motion," or "moved." A motion in this setting is a noun. Chris Lowe (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @Cclowe: this page is not/no-longer protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, at the time the request was made, the article was fully protected, and the requested edit was not in dispute. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Ex-Girlfriend Gave An Interview On August 16

I don't trust her myself, but just thought it should be included. You can erase it whenever.2601:447:4101:41F9:F964:B645:981E:9CA0 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I thank Volunteer Marek for erasing it.2601:447:4101:41F9:C40D:F5DB:D0DB:CE8A (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)