Tag: Undo |
BarbadosKen (talk | contribs) Undid revision 855797186 by VQuakr (talk) You are not allowed to delete another editor's posts. Tag: Undo |
||
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
::::::If you want to debate the issues, put your personal feelings towards me aside, and debate the issues. [[User:BarbadosKen|BarbadosKen]] ([[User talk:BarbadosKen|talk]]) 07:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
::::::If you want to debate the issues, put your personal feelings towards me aside, and debate the issues. [[User:BarbadosKen|BarbadosKen]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 08:26, 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.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 08:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}} |
|||
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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Ellison&diff=855786521&oldid=855757281 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. [[User:BarbadosKen|BarbadosKen]] ([[User talk:BarbadosKen|talk]]) 22:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:39, 20 August 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Minnesota Portal Selected Biography
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Ellison did not attempt to go to Israel in 2008-2009
The article claims that Ellison attempted to enter Israel during the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict, but was denied entry. In the video that was cited for this, Ellison explains that he was not allowed into GAZA during his 2007 trip to Israel. He was, however, allowed entry into the rest of Israel. I will edit the page accordingly. -MJR
How can he be a lawyer if he does not have a license to practice law?
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/loomer-exposes-keith-ellison-for-not-having-law-license-msm-ignores/
Lexusaztec (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Colloquially the term "lawyer" can refer to someone who is not currently licensed, who has gone to law school. Lawyer does not necessarily mean "barred in a particular state." https://www.lawyeredu.org/attorney-vs-lawyer.html Furthermore, the Attorney General need not be an attorney. That is not a legal requirement for the job. And lastly, Mr. Ellison can reactivate his legal license by paying a fee, as he is inactive not disbarred. --Thalia42 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Domestic Violence Allegations Comment
There's been two reverts on WP:BLP grounds on additions of domestic violence allegations. However, the story has now been reported by the local alt weekly and the local NPR affiliate. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, the allegations and denial should be included. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ErikTheBikeMan: I appreciate you opening this thread rather than reinserting the content without discussing it. This is highly salacious and we should tread very carefully. I will hold off on making any other comment on this until others join in the conversation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- I understand the salacious nature of the content, but at the very least, the Congressman's denial seems relevant. Additionally, MPR's article seems fairly in-depth and confirms the existence of the text messages, albeit no video (which is probably relevant in and of itself). ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- The story is now in Politico, so it cannot be ignored. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. What was first sourced to the Facebook post has now made it into the mainstream press. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, we can wait a bit longer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: How do you figure? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, we can wait a bit longer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:30, 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)
- The story is now in Politico, so it cannot be ignored. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:11, 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)
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)
- Go for it. Watch out for that BLP BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 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)
- 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
- That is not what "gaslighting" actually means, and that is not what I am doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- RECENTISM literally says
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yeah I don't think you'll have much luck with that at BLPN. 37.48.125.46 (talk)
- The content that was added in this edit correctly describes the allegation as an allegation and does not violate any of the core content policies (NPOV, V, NOR) referenced in WP:BLP. Ellison is a public figure and the allegations (reliable sources are treating this as an uncorroborated allegation, but have not specifically cast doubt on the allegation) are well documented, therefore the content, with Ellison's denial, definitely belongs to the article. As nobody has explained how the content supposedly violates BLP, I do not see any good-faith BLP objections. NOTNEWS is clearly not applicable because this is not about routine reporting. The fact that Ellison has denied the abuse makes this content even more DUE. Politrukki (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- If the content is to be added (I don't mind), then it needs to be noted that numerous news outlets were approached with the allegations and that they decided not to run them because they were not considered credible enough to run with. Here is for example Minnesota Public Radio[1]:
- * More than 100 text and Twitter messages between Ellison and Karen Monahan, shared by Karen Monahan and reviewed by MPR News, show the two communicating after their breakup for months, coordinating her getting her things from his house. The tenor of the conversation at times was friendly, with the two acknowledging concern and care for one another, and at other times more combative over the terms of their break-up and the emotional pain Karen Monahan said he caused her. In one exchange, Karen Monahan tells Ellison she plans to write about their "journey" in a chapter in her book and Ellison warns her not to. "Horrible attack on my privacy, unreal," he wrote in one message. There is no evidence in the messages reviewed by MPR News of the alleged physical abuse.
- It would be a BLP violation (as far as I'm concerned) to report the allegations without this context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with your last statement about adding context. When I wrote the paragraph, I gave as much context as I was aware of. Since I have been accused of 3 reverts, I don't want to risk a block, so for now I won't touch the article. BarbadosKen (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is not is not an example of
"not considered credible enough to run with"
. The sources I cited did not say the allegations were not credible and I did not pick the sources selectively. I now see that Vox (which is usually a decent source when they are not conflating news and opinion) cites a Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel saying"story had been circulating in MN, and not held up under media scrutiny, so no stories ran"
. However, the Washington Post news story I cited does not mention anything like that even though Weigel contributed to the report. It looks like AP treats this as a new allegation:"The allegation first surfaced Saturday night ..."
- When I was reviewing the sources, the sentence
"There is no evidence in the messages reviewed by MPR News of the alleged physical abuse."
did pause me, but I also noticed that many sources did not consider it worth mentioning. Moreover, the conclusion does not even refute any specific allegation that was in our article because our article did not claim that text messages are a proof abuse. When I restored the content and did some trimming, I focused on laying out the main facts that are unlikely to change, and being succinct in order to avoid giving UNDUE attention to the latest controversy. - Whether the analysis of text messages should be included in the article is a separate topic and I would not vehemently oppose including something of it if someone makes a decent proposal that is not too lengthy, but omitting the analysis is not a BLP violation. Politrukki (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I just removed the paragraph again. This entire thing is based on a social media post by a family member. The reports are not
crediblesubstantiated, no charges have been filed, and there's no indication that the police are even involved. This is just mudslinging at this point, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to get in the middle of it. Bradv 13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)- What is the specific BLP violation you are claiming? Could you substantiate, citing reliable sources, how the reports (I think you you mean "allegations"?) are not credible? Monahan told at least three friends of the alleged incident
"in the months after she had moved out of Ellison's apartment"
. [2] Politrukki (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)- You're right, I should have said "substantiated". All of the news articles are based on a single social media post, without any evidence or police investigation. The only thing that's possibly newsworthy here is the subsequent denial. At any rate, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so it's completely appropriate to wait and see what comes of this. Bradv 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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
- Coming from BLP/N, as it is merely allegations and yet to have had any impact on his career, we should wait and see if it is still the subject of coverage a week or so from the event. While technically not a BLP violation (as a public figure, and the sourcing, while ultimately from a blog post, still covered in some reasonable RSes), the spirit of BLP, with RECENTISM and NOT#NEWS suggest we wait to see if this is a real story or just random politic mud being slung around. --Masem (t) 13:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have witnessed the ugly side of recentism in Wikipedia several times when sources including The New York Times, Politico, The Hill, and BBC have made drastic changes to the source without being transparent about it, but I would argue that the recentism argument (that includes following BLPSTYLE) is more persuasive in discussing whether to include hot takes instead of just focusing on hard facts. Politrukki (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- We go with reliable sources, right? I see this argument used daily, hourly, when it comes to conservative and Trump-related articles in Wikipedia. The same applies with the Ellison article, does it not? There are reliable sources reporting it. As long as we use the word "alleged" in relation to the claims of abuse (and at this time they do seem to be more than just claims since there is a video of it happening - but that's ultimately for the lawyers and courts to sort out), I see no reason why this wouldn't be in either the Personal life section or a "Controversies" section of the article. I say Keep the content. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that a video exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Seems there is. Somewhere. "The allegation first surfaced on Saturday night from Karen Monahan after her son, Austin Monahan, alleged in a Facebook post that he had seen hundreds of angry text messages from Ellison, some threatening his mother. He also wrote he had viewed a video in which Ellison dragged Monahan off the bed by her feet. Monahan, a Minneapolis political organizer, said via Twitter that what her son posted was "true." [3] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've already read that. Just because someone says a video exists doesn't mean it exists. We're all still waiting to see that Michelle Obama "whitey" video, after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"Just because someone says a video exists doesn't mean it exists."
Yes, of course. No idea what the MO "whitey" video is supposed to be. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)- Apparently now the accuser is saying she "lost" the video.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- How convenient. You'd think she'd have made many backup copies of such an important video.
- @Winkelvi: The idea that there was a video of Michelle Obama railing about "whitey" got a bunch of press in 2008. No video ever saw the light of day, because it doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
"How convenient"
Seems to me that if we're not putting anything yet in the article because WP:NOTNEWS and the like, we shouldn't be speculating on whether or not this is an authentic allegation. And we sure shouldn't be victim-shaming and blaming and trying to turn this alleged victim of assault into the villain. Time to stop, don't you think? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)- Time to stop running with every flimsy allegation, yes. We should have a pretty high bar for things like this. A weak allegation like this going public the weekend before the election smells of dirty politics, not a true #MeToo story. But therein lies the point: how do we know for sure? What damage do we do if we run with a false allegation? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- According to CNN, Monahan says the video was "misplaced"[4], not lost, but has refused to produce the video anyway. But CNN also reported that Monahan's friends corroborate that Monahan told them about the allegation long time ago:
"Three friends of Monahan, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of backlash, told CNN she had confided in them about the bed incident in the months after she had moved out of Ellison's apartment."
Politrukki (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Seems there is. Somewhere. "The allegation first surfaced on Saturday night from Karen Monahan after her son, Austin Monahan, alleged in a Facebook post that he had seen hundreds of angry text messages from Ellison, some threatening his mother. He also wrote he had viewed a video in which Ellison dragged Monahan off the bed by her feet. Monahan, a Minneapolis political organizer, said via Twitter that what her son posted was "true." [3] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that a video exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 13 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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) - 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)
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)
- 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)
- But the only thing about the relationship mentioned in the article is unproved. TFD (talk) 05:19, 17 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Your concern for the word "confirmed" has been noted and the word has been changed to "joined". BarbadosKen (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Precise wording
I've removed the section, as there is still some controversy over the precise wording, and this should be sorted on the talk page before it goes live. Here is what I removed:
After his divorce, Ellison had a romantic relationship with Karen Monahan. The relationship ended in 2016 and became public in August 2018, three days before the primary election for state attorney general, when Monahan's son posted on his social media account allegations that Ellison dragged Monahan off a bed by her feet while shouting profanities. Monahan later joined her son's allegations on her own social media accounts as well as in media interviews. Ellison denied the allegations.[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)
- 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)
References
- ^ Schor, Elana; Caygle, Heather (August 12, 2018). "Ellison denies abuse allegations: 'I never behaved in this way'". Politico.
- ^ Duncan, Jericka (August 16,2018). "Woman accusing Rep. Keith Ellison of abuse speaks out". CBS News.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Bierschbach, Briana (August 12, 2016). "Ellison denies allegations of domestic abuse of ex-girlfriend". Minnesota Public Radio.
- ^ Schor, Elana; Caygle, Heather (August 12, 2018). "Ellison denies abuse allegations: 'I never behaved in this way'". Politico.
- ^ 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @BarbadosKen: which secondary sources focus on that aspect as a "big part of the story"? VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 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)
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)
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."[5] 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 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)
- 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)
- 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."[5] I don't know what s/he meant, but it distracts from improving the article. TFD (talk) 06:16, 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)
- 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 and I interpret it two different ways and I am standing behind my decision. ~ GB fan 12:58, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Unacceptable censoring
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)
- We can debate... as soon as you stop making personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your arguments are now in the territory in which I have to call bullshit on this.
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)