Talk:Keith Ellison (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keith Ellison (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents 1 Error 2 African-American Politicians 3 "Anti-Semitism" 4 Biographies of living people 5 Neutral Point of View 6 David Strom 7 Link to CAIR Criticism 8 Wikipedia used as a Campaign platform 9 totally disputed 10 =Length of Sources section 11 removed blogs 12 removal of blog material 13 blogs 14 post election reorg 15 Nation of Islam section 16 needed info 17 Deletions 18 Copyright 19 Zealous partiality 20 Wikipedia - dumbed down 21 Allah Ahkbar and secondary sources 22 Citation of Don Shelby 23 Allahu akbar

[edit] Error

• Ellison’s father was a physiatrist and his mother was a social worker.

psychiatrist? physician? I don't know, someone else should correct this. Torgo 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like physciatrist is right, but fyi Physiatry is a real branch of medicine. Deborah-jl

Nation of Islam "Muslims" should be clearly noted as being such when the word Muslims is used as the majority of Muslims including Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufis do not recognize Nation of Islam as a religion but more of a political movement twisting the basic principles of Islam to suit their own agenda.

• Sign your comments, please, with ~~~~ Rob C (Alarob) 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African-American Politicians

Shouldn't he be placed in this category too? jcm 9/12/6

[edit] "Anti-Semitism"

Alan Cooperman says, writing in today's Washington Post,

"The first article defended Farrakhan against accusations of anti-Semitism. The second called affirmative action a "sneaky" form of compensation for slavery, suggesting instead that white Americans pay reparations to blacks."

Patrick Condon wrote, on Wed, Jul. 05, 2006

"One column defended Farrakhan against charges of anti-Semitism; a second suggested the creation of a state for black residents. In 1995, Ellison helped organize a delegation to Farrakhan's Million Man March in Washington."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a published letter that we can cite, that would be great. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom, here is a link to the actual letter http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/keithellisonletterto%20JCRC.pdf. Thanks for your help. Your continued direction and advice would be appreciated.

The letter can only be included if it has been published in a reliable source. In this case, that might include Ellison's campaign website, or a press release. Then we could attribute it to him or his campaign. A blog would not do as a source, unless it's Ellison's blog. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Tom's take on the inclusion of the letter. As a conservative, I would like nothing better than to include it, but any negative information about a living person must be solidly sourced by sources that meet WP:RS, per WP:BLP. Blogs are not generally considered reliable, particularly on BLP issues, unless it is the subject's own blog, and that can be verified. Crockspot 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living people

Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people applies to all living people. We can't include uncited material about Representative Ellison, or about his political opponents, or anyone else. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

Please compare this page with the page for Alan Fine the Republican candidate for this race - this page is turning non partisan - and should be a biographical account of Keith Ellison - there is no evidence he was a member of Nation of Islam - and if we use things in this article which are partisan why are they not being used in the other article. Alan Fine made two stinging attacks on Ellison n which a lot of local newspapers are condemning as extremist. I see no mention of this on Alan Fine's page. This is a living person and a biography and I feel we are overstepping the POV line here.

Ellison was never a member of the Nation of Islam, nor did he use Anti Semitic comments, I have removed the references to this and also the reference to the Gubernatorial candidates backing Ellison as this is a biography about the person, and I am following suit with the Fine article and ensuing fair play.

Where were the equating comments about Keith Ellison when he attacked Arlon Lindner the Republican who denied the Holocaust. Keith Ellison condemned Lindner. Ellison is also very supportive of gay marriage. The equation that he is a racist, homophobe which is implied in the comments on this page are a totally subjective POV. There was no mention of his acceptance speech which had people of all religions, colors, races, ages, and the theme was love and peace.

Rej4sl—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rej4sl (talk • contribs) .

Alan Fine is best discussed at Talk:Alan Fine. Where do we say that Ellison was a member of the nation of Islam, or made anti-Semitic comments? Finally, I'm not sure a political speech in praise of love and peace is entirely notworthy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to ignore my comments - this article is not NPOV - it needs to balance the comments about his alleged involvement with the Nation of Islam with his condemnations of Holocaust revisionism, and his positive comments regarding gay marriage. All I ask for his balance - this article is too one sided. Rej4sl (talk

Again, where do we say that Ellison was a member of the nation of Islam, or that he made anti-Semitic comments? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV Rej4sl (talk

Seems that we have struck a good balance! The process has worked well. At least for now...I'd imagine that this article will change a lot in the next week or so...V105memorial ^Talk

I would point out that the overwhelming content of this pievce is focused on guilt-by-association accusations leveled against Ellison by partisan opponents, which, although vaguely supported by the links, hardly seems neutral at all. Astro Zombie 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Strom

removed items quoted from this blog - as not WP

[edit] Link to CAIR Criticism

You people are missing the boat. It should be linked later because to do do it where you want it, it implies that the link is related to Tammy Lee's criticsm.

[edit] Wikipedia used as a Campaign platform

This page is full of baseless allegations intended for poltical gain rather than informative purpouses. The lock MUST be removed because the neutrality of this article is in question.

[edit] totally disputed

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

This article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons

Rej4sl 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot personally vouch for anything in this article, but it seems to me most of the assertions are documented with citations. Appraiser 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this article is biased. The subject's Muslim faith seems to attract bias and prejudice. His being African-American only adds to the mix. I ask editors to scrutinize their sources with care. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, please don't be paranoid and assume anyone has anything against Muslims or African Americans. There is nothing in Islam that says that anyone has to defend someone a hate-inciting person like Farakan. Unfortunately, it is an honest concern about this guy. He needs to be given a chance, but this article should not be censored to take out anything about his past that might be concerning. Elizmr 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a better biography today - It just seemed like a campaign article before - a lot of the information was not sourced properly and came from unreliable sources like Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune who is a conservative opinion piece in the paper - her sources are often unreliable and do not need to be fact checked like an article - I am not against controversies in the article but put them in context and not overtake the article like a campaign leaflet .. Keith Ellison made mistakes and apologized for them and this has been accepted by a large section of the Jewish community - he has fought against holocaust revisionism in the MN house - his past actions he regrets .. we all make mistakes..

Rej4sl 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. It is all part of the record. He defended Farakan, he later apologized. Apologizing doesn't make it go away, and it should stay in the article along with the apology. He is a servant of the people and the people have a right to know his history, don't they? Elizmr 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Blogs are not allowed sources. Can an interested party remove them? If not I will remove them and place {{fact}} templates instead. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this page is actually pretty tricky to understand, may I suggest clearing it up a bit? The information is a little disjointed - and a lot of the quotes are too close together and confusing - so Keith Ellison claimed that Louis Farrakhan was not an anti-Semite, but was actually proven wrong when it turned out that Lous Farrakhan actually was an anti-Semite - and did something similar happen with Joanne Jackson? This "we (who's "we"? Keith Ellison? The Minneapolis-St. Paul Study Group of the Nations of Islam?) support Ms. Jackson: She is correct about Minister Farrakhan. He is not a racist. He is also not an anti-Semite." comment is pretty confusing. But what did Joanne Jackson say about Louis Farrakhan? I just thought she made an anti-Semitic remark - and anyway, who is Joanne Jackson? It doesn't say anything about who she is, who she works for or her relation to Louis Farrakhan or Keith Ellison. This "we support their support of that person's supporting something else entirely" rings kind of strange to me. And the quote in the line "A 1997 Star Tribune article said 'Ellison, an attorney who used his religious name of Mohammed in speaking to the board, read a statement supporting Jackson.'"? This is all just a little too confusing to me. And also, using blogs for references probably isn't a good idea, especially about politicians. Factual information tends to go out the window. Kage 258 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =Length of Sources section

Dlz28 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Is there any way to shorten the "Sources" section? It seems to be very large in comparison the article.

Agreed. There are a number of doubled footnotes. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. As contentious as this article has been, given the controversies around this man, we must continue to demand good sources and citations. Jonathunder 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is (as discussed in the next section) about half the article is under the heading Controversies. The election is over, so perhaps we can now write a biography in the tone appropriate to an encyclopedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed blogs

blogs not allowed as reliable source Rej4sl 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The littlegreenfootballs link was restored; I removed it again. The description of Ellison as "CAIR Congressman" and of supporters as"scream[ing] 'Allahu Akbar!'" is highly POV. It is not intended to promote "cultural understanding" but to link Ellison to popular images of, say, the Taliban or jihadists. It does not shed light on the issues, but only adds heat. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a news clip there. It is not POV to show an actual news clip, but as a blog it is a bad source. Elizmr 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hosting a news clip that is not owned by the site is copyright violation, so it should still not be linked to. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your're albsolutely right. I added the link to the news station itself, but it looks like it was deleted. I'll put it back. I'm assuming that is ok with you? Elizmr 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Most sources linked to are under copyright by somebody, and this is fine. If there's a source for cries of Allah akbar at his victory speech, they should be cited and linked, if possible. Jonathunder 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The video shows it happening (not that there is anything wrong with it--it was a happy moment) so I put something in the text to indicate. It was a nice speech. Elizmr 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a concern about setting a proper context for "cries of Allah[u] akbar." It is commonly assumed (in the context of the "war on terror") to be something like a war cry, or an assertion of Islamic superiority. It invokes images of jihadists, as I mentioned before. But in fact, among Muslim groups it is a sign of approval, like applause or cheers. I attended a function for an Islamic school in Alabama, and was surprised at first to hear the crowd call out "Takbeer" -- "Allahu akbar" to praise students who had won academic awards. I believe this explains the response to Keith Ellison's speech. The video of Ellison's speech, and the subsequent commentary in the newsroom, seem to put this in context.

More to the point, Ellison did not "yell 'God is great!'" He said, "God is good, y'all," and he did not raise his voice. When a volunteer yelled "Takbeer!" followed by "Allahu akbar!", Ellison did not join in and did not appear to welcome the demonstration.

I edited the relevant sentences, and corrected the Arabic phrase to "Allahu akbar."

One last comment: I feel this moment does not deserve intense scrutiny. Looking over the commentary on Ellison's campaign, I detect an almost paranoid sense that he must be hiding something, or that there's something wrong with allowing a Muslim into the halls of Congress under any circumstances. (I am not referring to WP editors, but to mass media and bloggers.) This does not represent my country at its best. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but I also removed some editorializing remarks. This happy moment for the first Muslim in congress surely deserves mention, not over scrutiny. Americans are concerned about and involved in their political process. This does not reflect any paranoia. Elizmr 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine. The <!-- commented out --> sections are adding extra white space at the end of sections. Not a big deal, but noticeable. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I might add that the "happy moment" is described in a cursory manner at the end of a subsection headed Nation of Islam, which opens a section titled Controversies. Of course controversial matters should be discussed. But it appears that almost everything about Keith Ellison is being described in an overall framework stamped Controversial. I don't think this is deliberate; it may be leftover detritus from editors acting in the heat of the campaign. Still, it could be improved upon. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is in the wrong section. Elizmr 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of blog material

I have removed the blog material in concordance with Wiki policy - It keeps being reinserted by a user who on his talk page has been warned about this kind of thing.. I am getting fed up of deleting it and it being reverted back by the same user Can an administrator look into this Rej4sl 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope someone cleans up this article - it seems hypocritical to mention that God was mentioned at his victory speech - when you saw victory speech from other winners on CNN and MSNBC who kept thanking God and this is not made into a big deal. Second this rubbish about CAIR - Republicans accepted donations by CAIR also and the leader of CAIR has met with the President and been photographed with him. It just seems all this is to condemn Keith Ellison - but when others do the same things it is not mentioned - this biography is a blot in Wikipedia - it is not NPOV and breaks Wiki guidelines on biographies of living people. Rej4sl 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope the article is NPOV! If reliable sources note that republicans are associated with CAIR, then write about it in their biographies. I agree that blogs shouldn't be cited, but article text that cites reliable sources shouldn't be removed. Andjam 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying remove information - but this article is way over the top - it needs to be cleaned up and more encyclopedia like Rej4sl 14:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The information being deleted is sourced from newspapers and not from blogs. (SEWilco 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

I ask muslim wikipedians to respect the rules and not turn this place into an activist platform. If something is backed up with a reliable source, it must stay where it is. so I restored the "allahu Akbar" incident, as there is a video that supports its accuracy. Vincent_shooter 12:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blogs

It is from blogs - powerline and Keith Ellison for Dummies as per the references - blogs are not permitted on WP Rej4sl 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Look again at what you're deleting. The text is based on the content of newspaper articles and Ellison's own letter, not from whatever text is in Keith Ellison for Dummies. (SEWilco 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Hi guys, we need to quote from the original sources and not from the blogs quoting the orig sources. If we are quoting the orig sources, the cites need to stay and if anyone takes them out they will be reverted. Elizmr 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] post election reorg

I put election details at the bottom of the article taking them out of the lead. They seem irrlevant there now. Also, I gave religion its own section at the end of "life" and put the post election video there as it does not belong in the controversy secton as someone said above. Elizmr 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation of Islam section

I did a major clean up and condensation of the nation of islam section. I put everything in chronological order. If anyone adds anything there, please note that the order is now chronological.

Someone reverted a lot of what I did. Please note that I did not delete anything, I just arranged it chronologically. It is not a whitewash. I put back my version. Please explain before undoing hard work, OK? Elizmr 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needed info

Does anyone know what kind of Islam Ellison converted into and what kind of Islam he practices now? Could anyone add more details about his accomplishments and projects? The article seems very balanced towards controversy. While that needs to stay, it seems important to balance the article. Elizmr 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

I deleted the parking tickets, taxes and the thing about the lawsuit with former employee as attacking, overly personal, and irrelevant. They are still in former versions if people feel they need to be in there. Also, I took out the sentence about gays and lesbians in the holocaust. It was completely irrelevant to the seection. If anyone wanted to write a section on Ellison's support of the GLBT community, it would be appropriate there and the sentence is still in the archives. Elizmr 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed and completely disputed tags: can we get rid of them now? Elizmr 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not if a great deal of well-sourced material is removed to make the article a whitewash, no. It is a fact of the man's life that he has had legal problems and other controversies. Pretend for a moment the article is about someone in a different political party, or of a different faith, but was elected to Congress with this record of not paying fines and taxes. You might reasonably object to that being taken out, and I do. Jonathunder 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but the thing about the woman is over the top I think. Can we take that out? Elizmr 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it over the top? Lots of politicians have such accusations noted in their articles, and, like it or not, they're relevant in American politics. Kairos 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is sort of a "he said, she said" kind of a thing which doesn't really say anything specific about him. I am not saying it has to go, it just doesn't seem very notable. I was trying to get the tag off the article and thought this deletion would help. Elizmr 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless or until the section regarding Amy Alexander has more substantiation, I would agree it could go. If the rest of the article is well-sourced and not tenditiously written (one way or the other), let's remove the tags, too. Jonathunder 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section. I think that Ellison's previous and current political positions and affiliations are relevant but his personal life is his own business and irrelevant. Elizmr 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, parts of his personal life are in the article (he is married, has children, etc.) but since this whole section was not well-substantiated or clear, I agree it can be removed on that basis. Jonathunder 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the standard biographical details are different from stuff about afairs, jobs and restraining orders, but thanks for agreeing to remove it. Elizmr 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Do not link sites hosting copyrighted content that doesn't belong to them. This is what makes the blog link doubly un-useable. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zealous partiality

I think it's useless to play the silly little edit/revert game, as it seems Keith's partisans are reigning like tyrants over this article. This is the reason why more and more people, do not take Wikipedia seriously anymore. It has become a political, ideological and religious platform and battleground for every zealot under the sun. Now the purpose of this encyclopedia is no more informing the reader, but putting what the editor judges to be the right thing. So we have people here who decide what is relevant and what is not, what people should read and what they should not read, and the list goes on. When I have time, I will try to contact some of our repuatble administrators to clean this mess up, and restore the objectivity and neutrality this encyclopedia is supposed to champion.

Vincent_shooter 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia - dumbed down

Why on earth are blogs allowed as sources on this biography - I remove them as per Wiki policy and they keep being reverted - so I think why am I wasting my time - anyone who clicks on the links can see they are hosted by powerlineblog - this article is biased and been taken over by people who have no idea what neutrality means. For the record I am not a supporter of Keith Ellison, nor am I a Democrat nor a Republican. I am just someone interested in politics and shocked to see that someone's reputation can be tarred so much by an article on Wikipedia. I read that controversies were allowed on biographies as long as they did not take over the article - it seems that 90% of this article is controversies from disreputable sources.

Note Blogs are not supposed to be allowed - but they are on this biography for some reason Opinion is supposed to be neutral but most of the comments on here come from right wing blogs or from conservative speakers in the Star Tribune - note that an opinion piece in a newspaper is not based on fact nor is it substantiated.

I honestly believe this article should a)be deleted or b)protected until it is neutral point of view. If the neutral tags are removed I will be astonished. Rej4sl 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality by administrators - please do not remove this tag until this has been done. It is not sufficient for each statement to be sourced, it has to be from a reliable source - which blogs, or opinion pages are not - this is not a biography which is neutral and it does not conform to Wiki policy Rej4sl 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rej4sl - Please let us know what specific statements in the article you object to. The article has a host of reliable sources, including many news articles. Which things, specifically, are you saying are not sourced and not true? Jonathunder 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathunder - I am talking about the references linked to Keith Ellison for Dummies and to Powerline these are blogs and not reliable sources - I have removed them and they keep being reverted - see above - other unreliable sources are candidate statements which are not based on fact but opinion, other unreliable sources are opinion pages from newspapers - I will compile a list but this is what I find unreliable about this article - legitimate sources do exist in this article - and I have no problems with any part of the article or the bringing up of any item in the article as long as it is sourced from fact and neutral sources - if all people can bring to the biography, are blogs and opinion pieces they are best left out of the article. It seems that the controversies section is based on the campaign - and maybe it can be shortened and given a section called "2006 election campaign" = and sub headers "issues raised or controversies" a lot of it is not really relevant and like I said it comes from dubious sources. A lot of the article is well written, it is just this section that is non NPOV. Rej4sl 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allah Ahkbar and secondary sources

The phrase "Allah Ahkbar" was shouted, but I don't think it should be mentioned in the article. Here's why:

The citation given is basically a primary source. We ought to be citing a secondary source which discusses whether saying "Allah Ahkbar" is noteworthy. Some bloggers regard it as noteworthy, but a google news search suggests that mainstream media aren't particularly interested. this google news search for Keith Ellison and Allah only got five hits.

• Congress' first Muslim can build bridges - a false hit - the Allah wasn't to do with Allah Ahkbar.
• an opinion piece in apparently a Bible prophecy web site - not a very notable source.
• Fifth, Sixth Districts: Close, but so far away - Allah wasn't to do with Allah Ahkbar.
• a letter to the editor at the star tribune. Letters to the editors aren't very notable or reliable.
• "Muslims: as unique as you and me" - the article has disappeared, but doesn't seem to be mentioning Allah Ahkbar.

We should leave interpreting statements like "Allah Ahkbar" to reliable sources, rather than arguing about it amongst ourselves. Thanks, Andjam 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is ok to cite a primary source WP:RS. It is presented neutrally in the article. An encyclopedia should contain more than the MSM. Elizmr 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of Don Shelby

The article has

On Nov. 14, 2006 a monitor of Jihadists Web sites linked to Al Qaeda reported that "terrorists don't think much of Keith Ellison. One called him the first Jewish Muslim in Congress.

I had a look at the citation, and the header of the article said "Friday night, Don wondered what jihadists would think about the election of the nation's first Muslim to Congress, Minnesotan Keith Ellison. Tonight, Don says, we have the answer." The article suggests that last Friday he didn't know much about what the jihadists thought about Ellison. Either the Jihadists hadn't said much about Ellison before the Friday (unlikely), or that he isn't a regular "monitor of Jihadists Web sites" Also, Don Shelby doesn't seem to mention him being an expert on jihad either. Any thoughts? Andjam 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

weird non-notable quote imoElizmr 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allahu akbar

During his victory speech, Ellison said, "God is good, y'all," and some of his supporters cried out "Allahu akbar" (Arabic for "God is great").

This is a bit misleading. I watched the video and it sounded like two or three voices max. That sounds like "a couple" not "some of his supporters". He did win by a landslide. But how is this relevant to the subject of this article anyway? Would it be included if someone had shouted "amen" or "hallelujah"? --75.72.161.204 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)