Jump to content

Talk:Keith Ellison/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"plenty of people don't care if Dershowitz leaves because he's not really a Democrat (torture supporter, among other things)"; "a number of Democrats are like 'good riddance, leave already, you don't represent us.'"

@NorthBySouthBaranof: if the above view is taken seriously by anybody, it will appear in an RS somewhere and that commentary can be reflected in this article. But you can't remove a mainstream view simply because somebody disagrees with it. That is not how WP works. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It may not be phrased elegantly, but I do not see why his opinion matters. Have you posted his comments to other articles? Are you going to put his comments about the Muslim ban into the Trump article? TFD (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a two part question. For our Wiki-purposes the reason is because the prime directive of Wikipedia policy is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to their treatment in RS's, and these are widely reported remarks by a commentator who is influential on multiple points that are relevant to the article subject (more on that below), which remarks have been either reported, discussed, or aired directly by, after a few minutes of searching, the Washington Post, CNN, The Boston Globe, Yahoo News, MSN, Fox, The Times of Israel, Haaretz, The Hill, Jewish Business News, and The Saint Paul Pioneer Press.

For the editorial boards of reliable sources the reason Dershowitz's opinion about Keith Ellison matters is that Dershowitz is a highly influential democrat and liberal, and in particular he is a noted commentator on Israel which has been the focus of (1) a very large proportion of criticism leveled at Ellison in his bid for the DNC chair, which itself has been the most signficant political event of his life; (2) a very noted split among Democrats over massive changes in Israel policy made by the Obama administration, and supported by Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison; and (3) a closely related split between Clinton and Sanders and his progressive supporters, leading up to the Democratic presidential nomination for 2016, with the Sanders platform likewise supported by Ellison.

So in a nutshell there has been a long-brewing battle within the Democratic party regarding its Israel policy, waged across the Obama presidency, the 2016 party nominations and campaigns, and now the contest for the DNC chair, in which Ellison has been an increasingly significant player, both by virtue of his pursuit of DNC chair and due to his own efforts to become involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, all of which together have made Israel policy central to Ellison's political identity and fortunes—and again, Dershowitz is a top Israel and Democratic Party commentator whose remarks about Ellison's DNC chair bid were widely carried for that reason. Simply put, the sources seek Dershowitz's pedigree and perspective for good reason. And since his comments are widely carried in RS articles about Ellison, they're a proper basis for WP article material about Keith Ellison. I'm sure we could reduce the amount of space he gets but the idea of excluding these remarks entirely is clearly unsupported by policy.

Here are some sources to help you understand the issues at play here, since you seem genuinely in the dark:

Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's odd, Dershowitz isn't mentioned even once in those three sources you say explain "the issues at play here". Xenophrenic (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they do. They explain why RS's consider Dershowitz's views on Ellison important. TFD expressed confusion so I brought some reality into the discussion. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I just did a word-search for "Dershowitz" in each of those three linked articles: still zero hits. Oh wait, are you using alternate facts? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You said, "Dershowitz's opinion about Keith Ellison matters is that Dershowitz is a highly influential democrat and liberal." But that's not the policy Wikipedia uses. It uses "Due and undue weight": "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, FrontPageMag, LvMI and Stormfront and many other websites have played up this particular aspect, but until mainstream sources do, it does not belong. If you disagree with policy, then get it changed.
BTW the argument "a liberal said it" is a composition fallacy. Liberals are not a monolithic entity and no one liberal speaks for all. You used the same logic when you said that because a Jewish or Israeli person expressed an opinion they were speaking for all Jews and/or Israelis. Jews, Israelis and liberals all have independent thought and may express views that diverge from others.
TFD (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Absurd nonsense as usual.
You're either intentionally misreading or you just can't read or understand simple English. The paragraph beginning "for our Wiki purposes" explains why the comments are entitled to space under the WP:WEIGHT policy—because of their wide RS publication on the subject of Keith Ellison.
The explanation about why sources publish Dershowitz's opinions on Ellison are just that—an explanation about why sources choose to publish Dershowitz's opinions on Ellison. Since you have professed ignorance as to why his opinion matters, I stepped in to correct that ignorance.
Nor did I even remotely suggest that Dershowitz speaks for all liberals, or all Jews. Just explained "why his opinion about Keith Ellison matters", which is what you asked. So again it's not a "logical fallacy", you just can't understand what you're reading even though it is very plain English. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked for the "absurd nonsense" in TFD's comments, and I'm not seeing it -- to the contrary, TFD appears to have a solid grasp of relevant Wikipedia policy and its application here. Where is the disagreement? Factchecker argues that Dershowitz has a "pedigree" and is a "commentator who is influential" and his opinion matters to "editorial boards of reliable sources", and Wikipedia agrees, which is why we have an article on Dershowitz. I see no problem with adding Dershowitz' opinions about Ellison or the policies of Obama & Kerry to the Dershowitz article. When Factchecker argues that an article should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to their treatment in RS's", I agree, but the "viewpoint" that "if Ellison is elected, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue! (or red, in this case)" is a viewpoint about Dershowitz, not the subject of this article. It is important to remember that our "prime directive" policy does not say "represent all significant people that have been published by reliable sources", it says "viewpoints" - and the proposed text addition doesn't give an informative viewpoint about the subject of this article. It only informs us about Dershowitz. If Factchecker is struggling to convey to our readers the viewpoint that some people oppose Ellison's bid to head the DNC, that viewpoint is already conveyed in this article. If Factchecker is trying to convey to our readers views critical of Ellison's position concerning the Middle East crisis, the proposed sentence which says only (paraphrased) "Dershowitz says waaaah, I don't like his views, so me (and unnamed others) are taking our ball and going elsewhere" isn't at all informative and isn't encyclopedic. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion that Dershowitz's views about Ellison aren't relevant or significant for Ellison—even though they were widely reported for their relevance to Ellison and his bid for DNC chair—is silly. And the remainder of your rambling comments aren't directed to the only thing that really matters under WP policy, which is that the views were widely reported by RS on the subject of Ellison. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, a number of editors disagree with you, and there is clearly no consensus for its inclusion. The next step, if you desire to seek broader editorial input, would be to open a Request for Comment on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

First I want to see whether there is any hope of reaching a compromise. I've attempted to discuss each proposal separately, as recommended by WP policy, but keep getting generic blanket denials in response. So now I'll try to talk about all these changes at once. What do you think about the following:

  • Include the New York Times analysis stating that Jewish groups and some unions opposed Ellison
  • Include the quote by the Anti-Defamation League CEO about spreading Jewish stereotypes, as reported in the New York Times and others, but trim the existing ADL quote, and also restore the remarks from Ellison's open letter sent in response, about alleged "right-wing interests"
  • Include the Dershowitz remarks but eliminate the direct quote; use brief paraphrase instead
  • Include and Wikilink the names of Assata Shakur and Sara Jane Olson, using the existing sourcing that already names those two as controversial past associates of Ellison, but without adding any extended description

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @The Four Deuces: Given the concessions suggested, would you grant your permission to make these edits? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @The Four Deuces: I gather that you have seen these suggestions and chose not to respond? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No; at this point, you need to open an RFC if you wish to create a broader consensus. In particular, I certainly don't see any sourcing which supports your claim that Shakur and Olson are or were "associates" of Ellison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
For example, the CNN source already in the article. We've talked about it already. You've seen it. You just didn't hear it because you didn't want to. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No, there has been extensive, even excessive discussion, and I see no point in continuing it. TFD (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ellison Tweet re: Sudan

I removed this form the page. If anyone can source it in a way that shows it's notable and encyclopedic, please feel free to replace.:While in Khartoum in August 2009, Ellison wrote a message on Twitter saying he "ran straight into Pres. Omar Bashir. He has been indicted by the Inter'l Crim. Ct. (ICC) for war crimes."[citation needed].E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it was notable because the US didn't have diplomatic relations with Bashir as an indicted war criminal and it's notable that the president of Sudan happens to "run into" a member of congress on a congressional delegation trip. I'll leave it to others to determine if it's notable. But it also ties in with Ellison's arrest for protesting outside of the Sudanese embassy in 2009. Fmitterand (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ceremonial DNC Deputy Chair Position > Member of Congress?

I'm curious if others agree that Ellison's role as an elected Member of the US House of Reps is more notable than a deputy chair position for the DNC. It just strikes me as strange that his bio box lists this first above being a Member of Congress. Heck, the description on the page for Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee says, "The role has been described as largely ceremonial." I'd offer to change the order, but I have had bad luck with these bio boxes in the past. Anyone who agrees with me care to help? TIA Fmitterand (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Ellison. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keith Ellison. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Indef semi-protection

While I can see the need to semi protect the page to auto-confirmed editors for the next week or so, I see no reason for such a protection to be indefinite. I hereby call on the the locking admin to reduce the duration of the semi-protection to no more than a week. Protection should be done in stages. An indefinite protection should never be the first step. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection merely stops unregistered and newly registered editors. It helps stop trolls and meatpuppets, but allows new editors to participate after registering and making a few edits to other articles. Since Ellison is in a political race - I notice that no one has bothered to add that to the article - I expect that Ellison opponents who are not familiar with Wikipedia policy will attempt to provide edits contrary to policy. That may end when the election is completed in November. So maybe we could have a three month semi-protection. TFD (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Three months is excessive. There has been no vandalism to the page, so there is really no reason to semi-protect it at all. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
There have been a number of IP edits. One wrote as an edit summary, "Previously gave the misleading impression that the Founders, or at least the one cited, would have approved of Muslims in Congress; the "anticipation" was of a negative character. Although this concern seems to be out of context when detailing an objection regarding a Hindu, or at least non-Judaeo-Christians in general, and not Muslims in particular."[1] I don't know what s/he meant, but it distracts from improving the article. TFD (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what exactly your point is. One IP's rambling edit summary (which I don't understand either) is not a reason for semi-protection, let alone for an indefinite period of time. BarbadosKen (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I recommend three months, not indefinite. Cam you explain why you think unregistered editors will improve the article? TFD (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Cam you explain why you think unregistered editors will improve the article? Huh???? Per WP:SEMI, Semi-protection should be applied when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. This page has not had any of these problems, so there is really no need for an a semi-protection, let alone for an indefinite period of time. BarbadosKen (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to add it to the Arbitration enforcement log when I added the semi-protection to reduce the disruption. The first edit by an IP after the 1RR went into effect was to make a revert and say Feel free to revert whenever. ~ GB fan 11:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
You lost me. Are you saying that whenever a page goes into a 1RR status then it must also go into semi-protection? BarbadosKen (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not say that. I determined based on the first edit that disruption was already happening and felt the best solution was to make sure that was not going to happen. It is a discretionary sanction. ~ GB fan 12:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
That edit summary seems like a good faith edit inviting other editors to revert in case they feel he/she made the wrong call. It was absolutely not vandalism. If that edit summary was the sole reason for the semi-protection, I call on you to immediately remove the semi-protection from the article. BarbadosKen (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
You and I interpret it two different ways and I am standing behind my decision. ~ GB fan 12:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. I have taken this to WP:RFP for a review of your decision. BarbadosKen (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You all have edit warred enough. I've gone to WP:BLPN and asked an uninvolved admin to lock this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The RFPP request was declined. I see no harm in keeping this semi-protected through the election; this is likely to remain controversial and attract POV-pushing editors (of multiple political persuasions) through the election. It would be reasonable for the protection to expire in December; no point arguing about/for that now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

BLPN

Left a request at WP:BLPN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Lack of response though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give my 2 cents. I see a lot of fallacious arguments being used above, including but not limited to false equivalence, fallacy of quoting out of context, inconsistent comparison, argumentum ad ignorantiam, circular reasoning, proof by assertion, onus probandi, and more. For example, I'll pick one statement that caught my eye: "The length of the coverage of the allegation of domestic violence should not be measured relative to the length of the rest of the section of his personal life. It should be measured relative to the coverage it has received." This is clearly an obvious logical fallacy on three levels, number one of which is quoting out of context without regard to the intention of the policy and how it fits into the whole. It is easy to see that if we base all articles' weights on these premises, we'd have a serious problem with bloat and one-sidedness. In many respects, an article can be thought of as being like a boat; if you put all the weight on one end or another, it will sink. We most certainly do base weight of info not just by how much coveraqge it gets, but how well if fits in proportion to all of the other information in the article. In the entire course of the subject's life and career, how significant is this information? By answering that question, we can decide just how much space it should take --if any at all-- to put it in proportion to the rest of the article, so the entire "boat" will be balanced. All arguments about censorship too have such fallacious premises they are clearly an appeal to emotion. Zaereth (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Another thing I might try to clear up is the confusion over words like "prominence" and "tabloid journalism". People tend to think of prominence as being a measure of coverage in RSs, and in part that is correct, but it's like looking at a mountain and failing to see the range. That's an apt example, because it's very similar to topographical prominence. How well does one mountain of sources stand out against all the other mountains in the entire range? Determining that requires looking at the range as a unit.
When referring to "tabloid" journalism, at least in the US, this does not necessarily mean "unreliable", although that is generally a consequence. It means "sensationalist", "focusing on trivial information and often prone to exaggeration of both facts and their importance", and "lacking in the standards of journalistic ethics and editorial oversight." I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of requesting full protection because you all won't stop edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Full protection

I've protected this page for one week due to the interminable edit warring. Please take this time to amiably discuss the content dispute and come to a resolution. Fish+Karate 14:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem we have on this article is a few agenda driven editors who are masquerading their agenda as BLP concerns. This deletion is an example. Nothing in the content removed is a BLP concern (calls for him to drop out are legitimate content for a campaign section), yet it was removed anyway "just because".
I seriously doubt that within a week the agenda driven editors will cease driving their agenda. All attempts to reason with the agenda driven editors have proven to be unsuccessful. BarbadosKen (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The protection may not be long enough, but a week is a good place to start. Thank you Fish and karate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess "must keep article stable" trumps WP:BLP once again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

And another new account shows up to edit war

[2]

It's really stupid of admins to put a page under 1RR restriction and not restrict fly-by-night accounts at the same time, leaving the page open to WP:GAMEing. Why can't you guys ever think things through? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that the page is semi protected so new users cannot edit it? BarbadosKen (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"new users" here means brand new accounts. Here we're talking about just plain ol' new accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Wikieditor19920 is not a fly-by-night account, looking at the edit history.Bennycat (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
New accounts cannot edit a semi protected page. BarbadosKen (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
One editor on one side of the edit war said the semi-protection I placed on the article was to much and now one editor on the other side of the edit war says I didn't do enough protection. ~ GB fan 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The complaint that the semi-protection does not go far enough is a ridiculous complaint as evidenced by the fact that the complainer does not understand that a semi-protection does not allow new, non-autoconfirmed, editors to edit the page. Pay no attention to that complaint. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I pay attention to the complaints about my admin actions. It is how I evaluate myself. I could have gone with the next higher level of protection, extended confirmed. That would have stopped the action being complained about here. This is similar to protection of the wrong version, I have both sides telling me I got it wrong, which helps me say I got it right. ~ GB fan 10:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP difficulties

I find this deletion an unacceptable form of WP:CENSORSHIP. It is nothing short of a frivolous abuse of the WP:BLP policy to remove well referenced information. Since I already have my one revert of the day, at this point I cannot revert this brazen edit. Although I know that calling on the editor to self revert is most likely futile, I will do it anyway just in case he will pleasantly surprise. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of a multi-paragraph section dedicated to this minor news blip is overcoverage in violation of WP:DUE. Since this is a BLP, we default to excluding contentious material. That's neither censorship nor frivolity. I'm still fine with two sentence version, which has been broadly supported in discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but your arguments are now in the territory in which I have to call bullshit on this.
(a) Given that there are calls for him to drop out of the race and that it has been widely reported in WP:RS, it is not a minor story. NY Magazine is comparing it to the Al Franken case.
(b) WP:DUE refers to how much attention to give to minority view points when writing a balanced article. It is not about suppressing information that is widely reported.
What you did was WP:CENSORSHIP. You did not trim down the passage. You erased it. In my opinion, that's vandalism territory. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
You are misquoting "WP:CENSORSHIP". There is no "censorship" on Wikipedia. We are not part of a government. There's editorial decision and following policy which in this case is WP:BLP, as well as consensus which seems to support the short version.
And since this is a BLP issue, the WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include the the longer text. Start an RfC if you must. You know how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the WP:ONUS is on those who want to insert material into the article to show that the material is in compliance with Wikipedia policies. The material complies with WP:V, and WP:N. You (along with those on "your side") are throwing frivolous accusations of violation of WP:DUE, and then act like crybabies when you cannot get your way.
There is nothing WP:UNDUE about placing well referenced information in the article. We can debate how deep to cover the material, but we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. BarbadosKen (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
We can debate... as soon as you stop making personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
If you can't stand the heat, you need to get out of the kitchen. The only time I resorted to a personal attack was in response to a frivolous accusation of canvassing, and this was after I specifically wrote that I had interpreted the use of a Wiki jargon as a personal attack.
If you want to debate the issues, put your personal feelings towards me aside, and debate the issues. BarbadosKen (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not actually true. "act like crybabies when you cannot get your way". I have no feelings, personal or otherwise, towards you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am losing my patience here. Like Monahan, you need to either put up, or shut up. Saying that the length of the section is a WP:UNDUE no longer cuts it. You need to specifically state what part of the section you find objectionable. Deleting the section in its entirety yet again will not be tolerated. More information about the case is coming out daily, so it is impossible to sweep it under the rug. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this is meant as a courtesy warning - if you keep making threats, insults, and WP:BATTLEGROUND language - like "act like crybabies", "put up or shut up" "get out of the kitchen", etc. , then I will have to file a WP:AE report. It's not really possible to have a productive discussion in this circumstance. Please also consider that multiple editors have disagreed with you. Maybe they have a point? How about trying to understand where others are coming from - which is WP:BLP - rather than edit warring? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this tabloid issue takes up 80% of the Personal Life section, but involves only the last week of his life? People are even tacking on opinions voiced by uninvolved publicity seekers. That is a violation of BLP.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP

even if a public figure. Carter2020 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I see no valid reason for such extensive coverage. TFD (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

We have 4 editors who support User:VQuakr's version and 2 users who support User:BarbadosKen's version (him + Bennycat). And this is a BLP issue. This is consensus or, at most, no consensus, which with BLP defaults to not including.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not exactly accurate. Yourself and User:VQuakr did not restore his version, you both blanked the section. User:BarbadosKen has repeatedly asked for clarification as to why the section was blanked rather than edited to your version, and this has not been adequately answered. My objections to the edits contrary to mine are, in order of importance, 1) Blanking the section is not an appropriate edit when a sentence or two is under dispute 2) The video information is relevant, well sourced and published, and should be included. I believe WP:BLP is being misused to blank the entire section under the guise of 'just to be safe', when really it was the video component that was nucleus of the dispute. Bennycat (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so let's restore the short version while we discuss the rest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
And "your" version is seriously POV. "Acknowledging that he did indeed have a relationship with Monahan" <-- implies some sort of guilt (not like he ever denied it or like it wasn't public knowledge). And as several users have pointed out, the length is wayyyyy UNDUE.
And one more time. This is a BLP issue. And esp. with the election coming up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
After leaving an unwarranted message on my talk page, it's unnecessary to repeatedly school me again that this is a BLP issue. Apparently knowing that this is a BLP issue has not prevented you and others from excluding the entire incident, contrary, I believe, to WP:BLP itself. Now, clearly editors still have some work to do in ironing out the precise wording of the section. This was already underway in a section above this one prior to the disruptive blanking of the entire section. Editors should return to that discussion. Bennycat (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The BLP issue involves *including* this text, not excluding it. This should be obvious. How in the world would it work in the opposite direction?!? WP:BLP is meant to protect living individuals, not serve as an excuse for harming them.
And per BLP, and yes, I'm repeating this since you seem not to be getting it - the WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include this info. So stop it with the edit warring and blind reverting please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
BarbadosKen made a comment that excluding the entire section constitutes WP:CENSORSHIP, and works contrary to WP:BLP. I'm deferring to that analysis. The onus is not currently on editors that the allegations should be included at all, it rests on including the disputed video information, and the overall length of the section itself. Wiping the section to zero is not in line with established consensus that the allegations should be mentioned in the article, and is an act in itself that constitutes edit warring, at least by your own definition. We have an agreement that the dispute centers on the wording and length, so editors should focus on that and hammer something out. For the sake of completeness, the last revert I made was in answer to the editor who unilaterally blanked the section due to 'tabloid' (taken to mean 'unreliable') sourcing. This was clearly not the consensus of editors, who have not had an issue with the sources. Bennycat (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
One more time. There's no such thing as "censorship" on Wikipedia. He's misusing policy. BLP is there to protect living people, not harm them. He's misusing the policy. Why exactly are you "deferring" to his analysis rather than to the editors who've explained at length that this is not how this works? Yes, the ONUS is on those wishing to include.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because those editors are choosing to completely omit the allegations, which, yes indeed is tantamount to censorship. I don't have anything to add to what I have already said, and have no particular wish to keep repeating myself. This conversation is now not productive or conducive to improving the article. I would, one more time, encourage you to join me in working on the precise wording of the section, because that is what was actually being debated prior to the disruptive and repeated blanking of the section.Bennycat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Bennycat doesn't name "the editor who unilaterally blanked the section due to 'tabloid' (taken to mean 'unreliable') sourcing," but that wasn't me. That wasn't me, obviously. To be very, very clear, I never mentioned sources in my edit comment or my talk page comment. I also never blanked a section. I did undo the addition of 80% of a section that was of severely undue construction, consisting of a he-said/she-said sensationalist tabloidesque story dropped during an election. I also did not edit "unilaterally", as my edit was no different than prior edits, and received subsequent support. Carter2020 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Do not deny that you blanked the section, because you did in this edit. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not blank the section. The WP:SECTION is still there. All I did was undo the addition of tabloid content, and a sub-section header, that was added by someone else. Carter2020 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Carter2020 Can someone explain to me why this tabloid issue takes up 80% of the Personal Life section, but involves only the last week of his life?. Yes, I can explain. The length of the coverage of the allegation of domestic violence should not be measured relative to the length of the rest of the section of his personal life. It should be measured relative to the coverage it has received. Since his personal life prior to the allegation of domestic violence did not receive much coverage, the section prior to the allegation is not very long. WP:DUE demands that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. The coverage therefore satisfies WP:DUE. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Only if you are following recent coverage. There's no mention in the section that he is a practicing Muslim, although that has received more coverage. TFD (talk)
It is mentioned that he is a practicing Muslim, both in the lead and in the section titled Advocacy for American Muslims. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:due warns Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, which is what we have here, and also, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. In reliable sources about Ellison, of blp-quality I mean, those repeating the tabloid story are such a tiny minority that a strong argument can be made to omit it altogether. Carter2020 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@User:Carter2020 I didn't use your username because I could not remember it precisely, and in that moment it did not seem important to go looking. I apologize for neglecting to do that. Ok, I was wrong to say that you explicitly mentioned sources, but you did complain about the tabloid nature of the section, which infers to me that you find the material factually questionable, and by extension, the sources to be faulty. If that's an incorrect analysis of your input, then I'm happy to take it back, but still maintain that your reverting to a blank section (yes you did do this in your first edit [[3]]) was not an appropriate reflection of consensus. The real question now is to fashion a section that both sides can live with, and I encourage editors to work towards that end. Bennycat (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not blank the section. The WP:SECTION is still there. All I did was undo the addition of tabloid content, and a sub-section header, that was added by someone else. Carter2020 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @User:Carter2020, just because you call it "tabloid" does not make it so - the material appears in multiple WP:RS referenced in the article. Also, just because you claim that there is bias in the depth of details does not establish a bias in the depth of details. You have to make a case. Claiming is insufficient. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The story is covered at Huffington Post, CBS News, New York Magazine, and Minnesota Star Tribune. Not exactly tabloid journalism. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I changed the heading; "censorship" is just a rallying call, hot air. BarbadosKen, I am happy to see you quit yelling at people, which is a good thing because that means you won't get blocked for personal attacks. Carter2020, sorry, but doing away with this as a minor tabloidy blip is just not going to cut it. Marek, why don't you be a writer for a moment and trim that original content back to a sentence or two--because I also agree that it should be mentioned. It's really a thing, unfortunately for him and the Democratic Party. I agree that it is not a Huge Thing, or the Only Thing, but it's a thing nonetheless. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, I don't disagree with you, which is why prior to your comment I trimmed the undue content down to just an informative sentence or two, instead of "doing away with it". Unless more becomes of it to raise it above the level of tabloidism (with a dash of politically-timed smearing), then it is going to be unfortunate for the #Me Too movement, not Ellison or the Democratic party). Carter2020 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
VQuakr has already done that. His text, which I support including in the article is:
"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.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd obviously prefer more detail, specifically the allegation of the existence of a video recording (which has been reported widely), but if it helps put this issue to rest and stop the warring, I'm happy to support this version until more relevant information becomes apparent. Bennycat (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As a side note or comment, I find it interesting that including a reference to one alleged video, widely reported in the press, causes so much fuss and running to BLP, when whole lengthy articles are devoted to allegations of misconduct and alleged recorded material in other areas of the encyclopedia, and where the stakes and potential damage caused is exponentially higher. Bennycat (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness we reference the policy with legal implications for guidance rather than copying the worst violations elsewhere on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The policy's guidance is unevenly heeded and invoked, by single editors or the same group of editors. Bennycat (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@BarbadosKen: No. There was lots of coverage in sources about the subject's personal life before the Monahan story broke - as the first Muslim congressperson, there has been more than the typical amount of biographical interest in him. But even if no secondary source had mentioned his personal life before, giving more than a couple sentences (let alone a dedicated section) to this particular news story would be WP:RECENTISM, which we are specifically cautioned against by policy per WP:RSBREAKING and in the BLP policy at WP:BLPGOSSIP. Since the standard of care is so great with BLPs, we must default to excluding/minimizing contentious coverage. VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@VQuakr: These are serious allegations against a noteworthy subject, who is both a congressman and a high-ranking official in one of the two major national parties. Clealry that is the primary reason that the subject is notable and even has an article about him. The allegations in question have also been extensively reported on and responded to by Ellison himself. There is no reasonable basis to say that they are "too salacious" to include in the article. They were reported on by the NYT last week, not scribbled on a dumpster. As long as the information included is accurate and includes all relevant perspectives, there is no point in drawing out this debate.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested edit

Please remove the phrase

and, along with André Carson of Indiana, is one of two Muslims currently in Congress

from the lede. A 2006 source is cited. Per WP:CURRENTLY we should avoid the use of "currently" as it will rapidly age, as it did here. And the phrase really contributes nothing to the article. Kablammo (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable removal. I considered whether the phrase could be rewritten to be time-independent, but I think bringing up the second Muslim to be elected to Congress would run into trivia territory for this article. VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Renewed requested edit

On August 13 when the article was under full protection previously I requested this: 

change "motioned" to "moved" in the second sentence of the third paragraph.
This is the correct verb in parliamentary procedure. It's either "made a motion," or "moved." A motion in this setting is a noun.

The request was denied because the protection had been lifted by the time of response so I should do the edit myself. Unfortunately I am not checking Wikipedia regularly again (yet) and since that reply, a seven day protection was implemented before I saw the response. I will put a note in my calendar to look again on August 30th when I *think* the protection will be lifted, to make the edit myself. However if this is relatively easy for someone with the authority in the meantime, I will renew my request because I am unsure how long the end of the protection may last.

Is someone able to confirm the actual date the protection ends?

Thanks to those of you managing the dispute. Chris Lowe (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Chris Lowe is correct. The verb is "moved", not "motioned". Please correct this clear error. Kablammo (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done VQuakr (talk) 00:45, 14 September 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[4]:
* 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". [5] 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." [6] -- 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"[7], 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)
Correct. That is why I presented Monahan's opinion as Monahan's opinion, nothing more. In case you missed, I was replying to a comment that added only speculation and did not cite any policies or reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Politics are irrelevant here. That the accusations have been made is definitely notable enough for inclusion, and there are reliable sources backing up the fact that the accusations (as well as Ellison's denials) have been made. No one is saying that he is guilty or innocent. Treybien (talk) 15:17 19 august 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is attempting to whitewash the page by adding language like "Ellison has 'vehemently' denied the claims" and removing other information reported by the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I am restoring the version of the text that 1) has consensus and 2) is in accordance with the WP:BLP policy. YOU, on the other hand, are making blind reverts with barely any discussion and in violation of BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You're all still at it. I requested full protection at WP:RFPP. I'm too WP:INVOLVED otherwise I'd do it myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 22 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)

It's worth noting that because User:Volunteer Marek has repeatedly accused others of "edit-warring," this user has in fact engaged in similar behavior by deleting other's contributions on dubious invocations of BLP (similar to claims above). Second, I am happy to discuss the neutrality of the current description, which I wrote. It is sourced, includes basic information about the allegations per the major news outlets cited, and also includes both perspectives (accuser's and Ellison's). Finally, I think it is time to stop beating a dead horse and treating these allegations as if they were just written on a bathroom stall. They may have started as twitter posts, but the allegations and Ellison's responses to them become a national story investigated & reported on by many major media organizations.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:45, 22 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.[1][2] 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.[3]

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)
I think the length is needed to maintain WP:NPOV, which supersedes WP:DUE. The fact that she says that a video exists, but is refusing to release the video to prove her version of events is an indication that there is likely something not true about her allegation. I think suppressing it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. In fact, I would say that we should lengthen it to give Ellison's version that no such video can exist because according to him the events as alleged by Monahan and her son never happened. Here is how I would rewrite it:

After his divorce, Ellison had a romantic relationship with Karen Monahan. The relationship ended in September 2016 and became public in August 2018, three days before the primary election for state attorney general. News of the relationship broke 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.[4] She also claimed that a video of the incident exists, but refused to make it public. Ellison denied that such a video could exist because although he acknowledged the relationship, he denied the incident took place.[5]

BarbadosKen (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:DUE is a section of WP:NPOV; neither "supersedes" the other. Your opinion on what to infer by the alleged video not be released is original research and irrelevant to the article content. I just think specific claims about a video are not relevant enough to Ellison to merit mention. Why do you think the first sentence is necessary? That can be equally and much more succinctly described as "ex-girlfriend", which is what a couple of the sources do. VQuakr (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not my a matter of my opinion the video. It's a matter that the two sides have different points of view, so the article must present both points of view. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schor, Elana; Caygle, Heather (August 12, 2018). "Ellison denies abuse allegations: 'I never behaved in this way'". Politico.
  2. ^ Duncan, Jericka (August 16,2018). "Woman accusing Rep. Keith Ellison of abuse speaks out". CBS News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Bierschbach, Briana (August 12, 2016). "Ellison denies allegations of domestic abuse of ex-girlfriend". Minnesota Public Radio.
  4. ^ Schor, Elana; Caygle, Heather (August 12, 2018). "Ellison denies abuse allegations: 'I never behaved in this way'". Politico.
  5. ^ Duncan, Jericka (August 16, 2018). "Woman accusing Rep. Keith Ellison of abuse speaks out". CBS News.
I prefer VQuakr's concise version. Anyway, this is an encyclopedia, not a novel. Put the key fact in the first sentence. In this case the key fact is the allegation, not that Ellison had a girlfriend after his divorce, which is not particularly unusual. TFD (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the allegations are disputed, it is important to present both sides of the dispute. Whether or not a video exists (or could exist by Ellison's version) is quite central to the dispute. It is also important to present what is not in dispute, and the fact that they were in a relationship is not in dispute. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Also support VQuakr's version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The VQuark version is inadequate. Ellison did more than deny the allegation. He all but challenged Monahan to produce the video that she claims that she has. Neglecting this is neglecting a big part of the story. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@BarbadosKen: which secondary sources focus on that aspect as a "big part of the story"? VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The CBS News referenced quotes Ellison as saying "this video does not exist because I never behaved in this way". This sentence completely changes the story from "he said / she said" to "she claims she has evidence that he claims cannot exist". BarbadosKen (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
With calls on Ellison to withdraw from the race, it is no longer possible to cite WP:UNDUE. This is a big issue. BarbadosKen (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've read the CBS article; hypothesizing about whether a video actually exists is not its focus. The significance you are placing on the alleged video still seems to be your own synthesis, which has no place in the article. I note that no one else has noted support either for the version you proposed above or the expanded section which you inserted into the article without discussion. Probably time to drop the stick, or at least respect the emerging consensus when it comes to article-space edits. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The significance that I am placing on the alleged video is not in the article. It's in this talk page and the edit summaries such as this one. Telling me to drop the stick is the Wikipedia equivalent of telling me to go fuck myself because you don't have to respond to the issues raised in this talk page as you have 3 editors on your side and I am the only one on my side. That's the consequence of the WP:CONSENSUS rule. You can feel emboldened to exhibit such obnoxious arrogance. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The only reasoning that you have presented to support expanding the 2 sentences to a section and adding mention of the video allegations is that you think it is important. That isn't a good reason to include. Please consider self-reverting your addition of the section, as it clearly isn't in line with the opinions of the editors here. VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the only one who believes the allegations about the video need to be included in the article, so I will not revert User:Treybien who inserted well referenced information into the article. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur that the allegations regarding the existence of the video need to be included in the article. Redacting that information does not adequately present the facts of the allegations being made. Bennycat (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Accordingly I have reverted the redaction. Bennycat (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. It does seem that this edit was done to illustrate a point that if we will not accept the editor's proposed version, then (s)he will not allow to put anything in the article what so ever. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I should add that I will be more than happy to discuss with other editors precise wording, but to absolutely censor highly relevant material is a non-starter. We can work on how to improve the neutrality of the presentation, but I will not accept WP:CENSORSHIP. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The detail regarding "three days before the primary election" seems trivial now that that election has passed. Other than that: these accusations probably should be included; I haven't followed the news coverage in great detail but it has been voluminous, though the existence of tapes has not yet been proven publicly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Developments regarding domestic abuse allegations

Objections to including these allegations on the basis of WP:BLP or WP:DUE no longer hold any water in light of recent news stories. We now have a U.S. senator calling for an investigation, and they were addressed in the Minnesota AG debate.[1][2]This was also covered by the NYT when the story first broke. [3] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There are no new "developments". This is the same allegation being reported over and over again, which is why it belongs in the bio at all. Don't start new sections when there's an RfC ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/407917-ellison-grilled-about-abuse-allegations-at-minnesota-ag-debate
  2. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/mazie-hirono-keith-ellison-cnntv/index.html
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/us/politics/keith-ellison-abuse-karen-monahan.html
Yes, there are. The accuser has released contemporaneous documents that she alleges corroborate her story and the allegations have now received attention from prominent party officials and politicians. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Ellison/Archive_3&oldid=1065953953"