Talk:Jeff Sessions

Famous JS quote: "I used to respect the Klan, but I don't anymore because they smoke marijuana'

Please add! Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-is-shadowed-by-race-and-history/2016/12/24/1432cffa-b650-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.ffb97edb6f47

NAACP on appointment

Six NAACP activists, including NAACP President Cornell William Brooks, were arrested at a January 2017 sit in protesting the nomination of Jeff Sessions for U.S. Attorney General. 1. Wang, Amy B (2017-01-04). "NAACP president among those arrested at sit-in to protest Trump's nomination of Sessions". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-01-04. 2. Chan, Melissa. "NAACP President Arrested After Sit-In Against Jeff Sessions". TIME.com. Retrieved 2017-01-04.

Bias

"Supporters of non-legacy, private spaceflight" is pretty clearly biased in favor of private spaceflight, I'm changing it to "Supporters of private spaceflight", as that seems unbiased to me, but feel free to chime in if you disagree.

Edit: I obviously can't edit the page so a mod make that change for me?

Video

User:Jasonanaggie This video shouldn't be in these 3 articlesif it is not mentioned in the text of the relevant article. The Yates/Sessions exchange shouldn't be in the text unless it's supported by a WP:RS, which I can't find. RSs determine notability. Please read WP:PRIMARY. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't "Primary Research", it is the video of a confirmation hearing under oath. There is nothing misleading here. It would be of interest to anyone reading this article. It is not often that you get a video that includes 3 separate issues involved in it. Here the questioner is the person who potentially will be taking the position that the one being questioned is answering a direct question about why she was fired. It could not be clearer.Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If it is important to Jeff Sessions, reliable sources will cover this video. Then you can add a description of it, citing the RSs, to the text of the article and maybe the video itself if it's WP:DUE. But you don't get to decide that this video is important to the Jeff Sessions article out of the thousands of hours that Jeff Sessions has been on C-SPAN. This is wikipedia policy 101 you've been around here for over a decade. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the video belongs, either. There are many CSPAN videos of Sessions, and I see no reason to include this one video over others. Marquardtika (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation of Jeff Sessions as AG.

Given the confirmation of Mr. Sessions as the Attorney General, please update the article to note that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2113 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that he is confirmed as AG, is he still a senator? Does he immediately cease to be a senator or does he have to formally resign? It may be necessary for the info bar and lede to be updated to reflect that he is no longer a Senator.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

He can not take office as Attorney General until he officially announces his resignation from the Senate. For example, John Kerry was confirmed as Secretary of State on January 29, but didn't take up the post until he resigned as Senator on February 1.Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 00:45, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

We're having the same problems at United States Attorney General & Dana Boente articles. Less informed editors are updating articles too early. This has been a continuing problem for all the cabinet nominees. Too many editors believe that confirmation automatically makes the nominee into the appointed officer holder. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think technically--despite the news coverage that says he has been confirmed--the official vote to confirm him has not yet taken place. The last vote was cloture to end debate on the nomination [1] (compare this with Betsy DeVos who had a separate vote after cloture for confirmation and a failed motion to reconsider [2]). However, I think the news media probably sees it as a fait accompli and the final vote might take place today. Any thoughts on being more accurate in covering these technical details? I'm inclined to just follow what the media is doing as our article does. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Homophobia?

It seems pertinent to mention homophobia, given Sessions' political standpoint of homophobia has been an obvious theme throughout his political career. Given he is a politician in what is generally considered a first world democracy, his anachronistic ideology is unusual, consequential, and therefore certainly relevant information on his Wikipedia article.

This is not intended to be an attack, Sessions' personal platform is indisputablly one of proud homophobia, and it is more than an interesting detail given its relevance to the global gay rights movement.

Xto 999 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you show us some Reliable Sources to support this? If it hasn't been discussed by multiple Reliable Sources we can't use it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN The book Hostile Climate: A state-by-state report on Anti-gay activity (1997) - https://www.google.bg/search?biw=1280&bih=918&tbm=bks&q=Hostile+climate+Jeff+Sessions+a+separate+case&oq=Hostile+climate+Jeff+Sessions+a+separate+case&gs_l=serp.3...9228.11348.0.11434.15.15.0.0.0.0.159.1204.10j3.13.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..2.1.119...30i10k1.hU1bUysfr7I Radiohist (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a book by People for the American Way, whose POV agenda is openly revealed by its title. Clicking on your link shows two partial sentences - nothing we can base an item on. We need sources to show this is actually a prominent public issue. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is another except from the book Alabama Getaway: The Political Imaginary and the Heart of Dixie - https://books.google.bg/books?id=iWA0MhRinKsC&pg=PA36&dq=Jeff+session+homosexuality&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz_cXjxYPSAhXsF5oKHR0tAwgQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=Jeff%20session%20homosexuality&f=false

I quote: "In 1995 Alabama attorney general Jeff Sessions, soon to become the state's junior senator, went out of his way to sign on as a friend of the court in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that sought to strike down Colorado municipalities' anti-homosexual discrimination ordinances."Radiohist (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And why is this not mentioned in the article - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/930/1492/1963744/Radiohist (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Radiohist: I have no objection to your adding something from both sources you cited in response to the topic at hand, but make sure to use the citation template to make a proper references (if you need help with that, please let me know). I do not understand MelanieN's claim that the first source is "biased" based on the title. What sources are not biased? I would like to see a citation to policy for the claim that source should be rejected. Radiohist: It would be acceptable to cite to the case, but only if you also include the secondary source that refers to that case. There seems to be WP:consensus that something regarding alleged homophobia be added to the article. Radiohist, you have my blessing to go ahead and make a WP:BOLD edit and see if it sticks. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, David Tornheim for your words of encouragement. I will try to add tomorrow or the next day. This whole Trump thing has more or less affected the neutrality of Wikipedia, unfortunately.Radiohist (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To me, mentions in a couple of special-purpose books are not adequate sourcing for an accusation like this. The books don't reveal this to have been a noteworthy issue outside of a special-interest prism, and there has been little to no coverage of this issue in the mainstream press that I could find. But here is one such mention you could use: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/kfile-jeff-sessions-lgbt-conference/index.html --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me ask: where in the article would you put this, and what would you say? I assume you are not going to say "proud homophobia"! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry MelanieN, but your stance is completely baseless, especially since you chose to ignore - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/930/1492/1963744/ May I add that our policy is moving towards a very dangerous path if we begin to ignore published books that have been considered primary sources for 15 years. If this is your personal opinion, then that is a horse of a different color.Radiohist (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, Here is some more proof that Session is against LGBTQ+ rights https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/devos-sessions-transgender-students-rights.html?_r=0 Radiohist (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

We already have a full paragraph, under "Social issues", about the fact that he opposes many aspects of LGBTQ rights. We could add a sentence about this latest gender-bathroom controversy. That does NOT mean we can call him "homophobic". That would be imposing a value judgment that is not made by, for example, the NYT article you cite. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• His job, as the attorney general of the state, was to represent the state's position. That doesn't always mean he personally holds an identical opinion. Additionally, doing his job doesn't make him a homophobe. Of course, opposing gay marriage or transgender bathroom use doesn't necessarily make you a homophobe either, unless of course you exhibit the fear associate with a phobia. In other words, merely having a different viewpoint isn't homophobia and trying to use a pejorative term like that is improper, even if some random source uses it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

Request more reliable sources than false news sites such as salon and huffington post for facts and to use more historical facts on Jeff's history as US Attorney, not just a 2 sentence 'he's a racist' moniker. thank you. 73.225.8.97 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - Please specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 23:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Schools

"As Attorney-General, Sessions led the state's defense of a schools funding model ultimately found unconstitutional because of disparities between rich, mostly white, and poor, mostly black, schools. According to ProPublica, Sessions as state attorney general fought the effort to fund poor black school districts as fairly as wealthy white schools "passionately"."

The second sentence simply repeats the first sentence, except that it uses the npov language "fairly" and quotes propublica saying that sessions fought the lawsuit "passionately". If propublica's pov is so important, at least it should be stated in the npov way i had before self-reverting. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References

I removed "passionately" as it seemed an unneeded adjective. Are there other changes you'd like to make to this content? Marquardtika (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the second (Pro Publica) sentence entirely, leaving the reference and putting "passionately" into the one remaining sentence. I see that Marquardtika has now removed "passionately" (almost simultaneously, we almost edit-conflicted) and that is OK with me. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Marquardtika. I think that the single sentence mention is due weight at the moment. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Can I make an observation? His job was to defend it. We should be careful about implying that he personally supported it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We could add a qualifier such as "in his capacity as Alabama Attorney General..." Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously it was his job, but Attorneys General have some leeway over issues like whether to appeal in particular contexts, etc, and sometimes choose their battles with an eye to future campaigns for governor, senator and so on. The thing is, there isn't much RS stuff on this: a NYT opinion piece, a short mention on AL.com, and the propublica piece. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we can leave it as it is. He defended the law ("passionately" according to one source) and that was his job. We commonly include the noteworthy things that people did during their tenure in public office. This seems to be the only thing he did as state attorney general that got much coverage, so it is proper to include it here. Without commentary, without implication one way or the other how he felt about it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd lean towards the "in his capacity" suggestion. Would "vigorously" be an acceptable substitute for "passionately"? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"Gang of Eight"

In seeing this edit adding Gang of Eight to the article, I immediately had to question whether a title of our article Gang of Eight meets are standards forWP:NPOV language. The term "gang" is no doubt an ad hominem to attack to group's work together placed on them by those who had the opposite views. The members for good reason object [3][4]. I did look up the term and it does appear in prominent news articles such as this New Yorker article. However, I am troubled that we are participating in the advancement of the ad hominem. Any thoughts on how to address this non WP:NPOV term?

Perhaps we could have, "Sessions opposed the work of a bipartisan group of 8 senators"? At a minimum the term should be put in quotes as done here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Gang of 8 is a very widely used term, not a term of derision used by opponents.See the disambig page too Gang_of_Eight. See Gang_of_14. See https://www.google.com/#q=gang+of+8+site:nytimes.com many uses by the NYT which passionately supported the bill. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"opponent of illegal immigration"

The article uses this phrase twice to describe his positions. It seems to me to be something of a throw-away phrase. Is there anybody who is a proponent of illegal immigration? I gather that the intent is to talk about his support for more measures to curb illegal immigration. Am I missing something? Any ideas on better phrasing?[[PPX]] (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the phrasing is that bad, but it could perhaps be replaced with something like "he favors strict enforcement of existing immigration laws." Marquardtika (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait...now we have was a "congressional proponent of reducing legal immigration." Is that sourced? That's different than being an opponent of illegal immigration. Does he favor reducing the number of legal immigrants as well? Marquardtika (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It was a part of the article before this edit, and it continues to be there after the revert. It appears to be sourced to this and this.

I was not trying to open up that can of worms, but we certainly can! [[PPX]] (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King Quotes

I've added some Coretta Scott King quotes in multiple sections in the article (both his federal appointment and attorney general hearing). If you don't think they belong in both, feel free to discuss it here, but they were critical in both instances and take up small page space. Nick.aus96 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the quotes you added due to WP:UNDUE. We already note King's opposition and include a critical quote for her. I don't see a compelling reason to excerpt multiple quotes in two separate places in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I support the removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

They were arguably the most contentious part of his appointment hearing, and I don't believe that they affect the neutral point of view.Nick.aus96 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree King's opposition was notable, and that's why we've included a summary of it in the article. But there's no reason to include multiple extended quotations of King's. A summary gets the point across just fine. Marquardtika (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Exactly. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Under "Personal Details" someone added "Political party - TrumpRussia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.135.241 (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not I, but the revision edit made it look that way. I added the info on his contacts with Russian officials.Casprings (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional info for Russian Controversy

Currently the Russian Controversy section does not even mention the response from the White House, Jeff Sessions, or even Russians. This should probably be rectified soon!

Texts that could be included in some way:

RUSSIAN EMBASSY IN D.C. RESPONSE:

"The embassy doesn't comment on numerous contacts with local partners, which occur on a daily basis in line with diplomatic practice" - Russian embassy spokesman Nikolai Lakhonin

Sources:

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/551945 https://ria.ru/world/20170302/1489088824.html http://news.trust.org/item/20170302102501-lvo20 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sessions-met-russian-ambassador-didn-t-mislead-senate-spokeswoman-n727966

JEFF SESSIONS STATEMENTS:

"I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false." - Jeff Sessions

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meetings/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/sessions-russian-ambassador-spoke-twice-during-presidential-campaign.html http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sessions-met-russian-ambassador-didn-t-mislead-senate-spokeswoman-n727966

JEFF SESSION SPOKESMAN STATEMENTS:

"There was absolutely nothing misleading about [Sessions'] answer [to Franken]. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign--not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee." - Sarah Isgur Flores

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/sessions-russian-ambassador-spoke-twice-during-presidential-campaign.html

"OFFICIAL FAMILIAR WITH SESSION'S INTERACTIONS":

"An official familiar with Sessions' interactions provided NBC News with a list of what was described as all of the then-senator's known visits with foreign ambassadors last year. The list includes the Sept. 8 meeting with Kislyak.

The official told NBC News that Sessions came in contact with Kislyak a second time at a public event organized in July by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, where he spoke informally with a small group of ambassadors, including Kislyak.

The official said Sessions often met with ambassadors, discussing bilateral relations and issues, both positive or negative. Ambassadors would often make "superficial comments" about election-related news, the official said. But it was not the substance of their discussions, the official said."

sources:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uber-driver-fawzi-kamel-explains-why-he-argued-firm-s-n727496

Hopefully someone can add much of this to the article, as it is is currently severely lacking.75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)