| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keith Ellison article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Racist Comments
As two factual edits have both been removed, I’ll leave this in the talk section. Mr. Ellison’s controversial opinions and remarks should have equal access to readers on his page as his positive contributions. Mr. Ellison is cited on video calling a Supreme Court justice a house slave…. On video. There is no “political interpretation” to that. The Senate Judiciary committee condemned that comment with bipartisan support. The comment was only removed because FoxNews is listed as unreliable by Wikipedia. The “reliable” sources like MSNBC and NYT chose not to run that story. All this is fact. The closest thing to opinion I posted was the title of “racist comments” which is entirely justified when you look at what passed Wikipedia’s litmus test to define something as “racist” on other political figures’ pages. This would be even more justified as a bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee essentially defined Ellison’s comments as racist. Johnnytucf (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do you understand what's happening when blacks call another black person an "Uncle Tom"? Think about that. It's no more racist than protesting racism is a racist act, a common accusation made by racists and white supremacists when their racism is pointed out.
- Your heading and sources were all coming from a racist universe, and we don't allow that here.
- Even the amendment and your unreliable Fox source say "racially charged", which isn't necessarily "racist" (which you use in your heading). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's the same as an American calling another American a Benedict Arnold. It doesn't mean the person making the comment is anti-American, just because Benedict Arnold was American.
- Lack of coverage of a story means that it lacks weight for inclusion. What is important to an article is determined by what reliable sources find important.
- Also, the term the Committee used was "racial," not "racist." TFD (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)