Text of 2 options and their references

Option A During Ellison's campaign for Minnesota state attorney general and shortly before the 2018 primary elections, Ellison was publicly accused via social media of verbal and physical abuse by ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan, including an incident in which Monahan said that Ellison "dragged her off a bed" while shouting obscenities at her.[1] The nature and timing of Monahan's accusations attracted significant media attention.[2] In August 2018, Monahan claimed she had a video of a physical altercation between her and Ellison and provided over 100 text messages between her and Ellison to MPR News. Following a review of the messages, MPR News stated, "There is no evidence in the messages reviewed by MPR News of the alleged physical abuse."[3] In a statement, Ellison acknowledged a relationship with Monahan but denied committing any abuse and responded directly to her claims of possessing of a video, saying, “Karen [Monahan] and I were in a long-term relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being. This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false."[4] Ellison reaffirmed his denial of the allegations in a television interview with WCCO.[5] Option B Three days before the 2018 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.[1] References ^ a b Haag, Matthew (August 13, 2018). "Representative Keith Ellison Denies Domestic Abuse Allegations". The New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Cite error: The named reference "allegations" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). ^ "Ellison denies abuse allegations: 'I never behaved in this way'". POLITICO. Retrieved 2018-08-22. ^ Bierschbach, Briana. "Ellison denies allegations of domestic abuse of ex-girlfriend". Retrieved 2018-08-22. ^ "Keith Ellison denies abuse allegations". Vox. Retrieved 2018-08-22. ^ "Keith Ellison Addresses Abuse Allegations In WCCO Exclusive". 2018-08-15. Retrieved 2018-08-22.

Straw poll

• Option B, though we can tack on a couple more sources. There is no indication that more coverage than a couple of sentences pass the WP:10YT, so we should limit coverage to that to be in line with the caution required by WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP. VQuakr (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Amy Alexander made misconduct allegations against Ellison 10+ years ago.[1] Too soon? More seriously though, Alexander's allegations were discussed on the talk page in 2016, but there is nothing in the article and I don't see why Alexander could not be included. Politrukki (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Option A - because Option B omits the important factual detail contained in Option A that has been widely and extensively published by reliable sources, and cannot be merely classified as unsubstantiated gossip. In full knowledge of and compared to the reported facts, Option B reads like unbalanced damage control. I can't support edits that do that. Bennycat (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thought you had changed your mind? Volunteer Marek 00:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, with respect to the above remark, I would ask an admin to please tell me whether it's an appropriate form of conduct here to use the straw poll section to attempt to limit the effect of another editors vote as you have clearly done here. Secondly, I was willing to compromise to avoid the section being blanked without consensus and to avoid the warring. The blanking and edit warring continued, now we have an RfC. This is my vote. Bennycat (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Option A - although not perfect (I would prefer to delete that last sentence which is repetitive), but Option B reads like it was written by the Keith Ellison campaign. The argument of WP:BLPGOSSIP is frivolous and duplicitous. Everything in Option A is very well referenced to WP:RS. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have also mentioned that I think we should add to Option A Keith Ellison's claims (which as far as I know have not been disputed) that Monahan continued to contact him up to a year and half after the alleged incident. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Option B - per WP:BLP and WP:BLPGOSSIP. This shouldn't even be up for debate. Volunteer Marek 00:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Could you (and others) please debate how BLP and BLPGOSSIP apply to this case and which parts in version A violate those policies? Politrukki (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Option B per VM above. If something more comes of this, then it can be added. As for now, there have been no charges or lawsuits filed, so it deserves a mention but nothing more until there is more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Option B per Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. The content should be placed in the election section,, not personal life, and at most should state that an accusation about years-old typical relationship problems have been publicized just 2 days before an election, and re-characterized as "abuse", without substantiation. The unsubstantiated allegations amount to "he talked mean to me and dragged me off a bed because I wouldn't empty the trash". Can we all just grow up, please? Then after the elections have passed, remove the sensationalism from the BLP and return the article to encyclopedic quality. Carter2020 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please keep your comments focused upon issues which are actually relevant to the policy analysis. We don't need to hear your personal take on why the purported actions do not rise to the level of actual abuse, even if they occurred. Honestly, I find the kind of minimization implicit in your assessment disturbing and indicative of how far we yet have to go on such issues--anyone who has ever dragged an intimate partner by any part of the body while screaming obscenities because their "subordinate" partner refused to attend to a chore demanded of them can most certainly be fairly described as abusive, as far as I'm concerned. And if a friend ever told me that they view such occurences as "typical relationship problems", I'd tell them they have a serious problem that they need to deal with, no matter which side of that equation they would anticipate being on.

But here's the thing: neither you nor I are here to provide our assessment of the situation as regards A) whether it constitutes abuse, B) whether it is sufficiently substantiated to be taken seriously, or c) literally anything else that is a qualitative analysis/commentary on the part of one of our editors. That is black and white WP:original research. The only thing which matters here, and the only thing comments should be directed towards, as regards the depth of coverage necessary for the article, is what kind of WP:WEIGHT the event has with reliable sources. Your analysis of why this really isn't important is not a part of the editorial analysis which policy defines here, and can only serve to inflame discussion and/or drag it towards non-relevant idiosyncratic analysis based on our personal opinions, rather than the appropriate basis of the sources--so please spare us your "this is no big deal" impressions. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm on the fence on this one and will have to dig into the sources further before I arrive at a firm opinion, but I have to thoughts so far:

1) I'm pretty confused that that the editors voicing the strongest concerns regarding BLP view option B as unquestionably the better option to serve those concerns. Personally, I find most of the content in version A is pretty supportive of Ellison's account, and provides context that mostly softens the blow a little more than a one-line, no context accusation of domestic abuse does. I genuinely would have expected the editors who are most concerned about the possible BLP implications to Ellison to prefer version A. In any event, those who have cited WP:BLPGOSSIP need to go back and re-read that little piece of policy, because here's literally the entirety of that section: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit. " And the answers to those questions are easily ascertainable here: Yes, we have multiple WP:reliable sources covering this topic as secondary sources (whether we have enough sources to meet the WP:DUE analysis is another matter, but the sources themselves are perfectly RS in every respect); no, we would not be presenting the accusation (or any of its particular details) as an established factual matter, but rather just noting that the accusation itself exists; and yes, the accusations are absolutely relevant to a disinterested article on the subject. There's no issues with weasel words in the reliable sources, there's no anonymous primary source involved, and no circular referencing.

So BLPGOSSIP does not really apply here, because we are not talking about "mere gossip" by any means. We are talking about a serious accusation which--whether absolutely true, an exaggeration, or a complete fabrication--has been widely reported and has already had substantial political repercussions. That's not to say that there are no BLP issues whatsoever--there may well be. But those invoking BLPGOSSIP like a talisman because "gossip" in their mind is synonymous with "ubsubstantiated" need to be more careful and be certain they truly understand the policy language they are citing. Because this is not remotely the kind of situation that said subsection is designed to address, as its language makes clear. That four sentence micro-section of BLP exists for the very narrow scenario of vague accusations that work their way through the grapevine of rumor and innuendo without being validated by anyone in particular, not high-profile, well-publicised, and clearly articulated accusations made openly in the public sphere. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but there may well still be WEIGHT and/or BLP reasons to go with more limited coverage here, rather than deeper coverage; I want to be clear that I've not established my opinion as to that yet. But citing BLPGOSSIP in particular only damages the strength of an editor's argument in this particular case, by making them seem like the type who reflexively invoke portions of BLP that seem like they apply from the sound of their WP:SHORTCUT, rather than predicating their opinion more tightly on actual policy language. Because no matter how much you contort BLPGOSSIP, it clearly is not remotely relevant here, and this is not the editorial context it is meant to serve.

2) Additional--and this will be vastly more brief, but is maybe the more useful point, actually--I note that there is a world of difference between the two versions, one being a single sentence and the other a six-sentence paragraph. Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me: was there any previous effort to explore additional middle-ground solutions beyond these two? Are we certain there's not some 2-4 sentence version that everyone could live with? Snow ^{let's rap} 13:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason you have this world of difference between the two versions, one being a single sentence and the other a six-sentence paragraph is that the editors supporting the single sentence option would prefer a zero sentence option, but they know that a zero sentence option is not supported by Wikipedia policies. They therefore throw around false WP:DUE and WP:BLP arguments in an effort to try to bury the story. The fact that the 6 sentence option is actually more favorable to Ellison is of zero concern to those editors. BarbadosKen (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW, if you read my !vote above, you'll see that I do not support each and every sentence in the 6 sentence option. In my opinion, the last sentence in the 6 sentence option is completely superflous, and I believe that it is important to mention Ellison's claim that in spite of the allegations she made against him, his ex-girlfriend continued to contact him up to 20 months after the alleged incident. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Option B (Summoned by bot) Option A has excessive detail, and is too long, constituting overemphasis. Option B gets it just right at the present time. That may change if these allegations get more traction. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Option A Coretheapple I think that there are sufficient sources to say that this story has significant traction. On that basis, I think it's appropriate to include relevant details.^{[1][2][3][4][5] [6] [7][8]}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been several weeks and... where is this "traction"? All these sources are from August when it first "broke". Volunteer Marek 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The traction is in this September 9 interview in which he is still answering questions about the allegations. BarbadosKen (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really traction. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not at all traction. It's a passing mention. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

And here is coverage from September 18: national, local. But I'm sure that's not traction either, because when you are leading in the vote count (no longer a !vote count) 8-4, then who cares about facts? BarbadosKen (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ever consider that the "vote count" reflects "facts"? Volunteer Marek 16:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The results of the poll do not reflect "facts" nor do they represent consensus per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PNSD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, is there an independent source for the claim that she provided medical records and told her therapist about it? Volunteer Marek 16:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If by an "independent source" you mean a WP:RS, since WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH isn't permitted, then yes, there are.^[9]

Actually BarbadosKen, I only see one editor here obsessing about vote counts. VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times article (August 30) interviewed more than a dozen people who knew Ellison and Monahan, which means that NYT spent a significant amount of resources for the story. Here are some sources from September: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Politrukki (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

These sources are NOT New York Times as your comment implies. But anyway, they're either from early September (1) or they only mention it in passing. Or they're Fox News. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The arbitrary definition of "traction" being applied by the two editors above seems to me irrelevant. WP:BLP prohibits the inclusion of libelous or unsourced information. What we're proposing to include is a detailed description of allegations that have been nationally reported on - I don't see the BLP issue? Also, I'm curious why Muboshgu reverted my edit placing the information under a separate header. The information that's already on the page is impossible to find at present for any visitor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I told you in my edit summary. Giving that its own section grants it WP:UNDUE weight. The allegation does not need to be highlighted in such a way. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I placed it under a level 3 subheader in an already existing, relevant section ("Controversies"). No typical visitor to the page will be able to find it otherwise. How does that lend undue weight to the matter? Furthermore, I have a hard time reconciling how that assessment is based on the sources, because there seem to be more than enough to establish significance. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section is an issue unto itself as it shouldn't exist: WP:CSECTION. I'll take that up later. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: WP:CSECTION isn't a Wikipedia policy. And the section as of now exists, as do similar sections in many articles, so it is entirely reasonable and not in violation of WP:DUE to place the description of the allegations under a subheader. Your revert has the effect of "burying" the information, which I think is a serious problem for this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I also think a separate section (or subsection) is unwarranted. It draws undue emphasis on this minor point. MOS:BODY also notes that "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

So despite having over a dozen WP:RS supporting the information, we shouldn't dedicate more than a sentence to describe the alleged abuse and should omit important details, and now by extension, we shouldn't permit the information to be included under a subheader. Therefore, any typical reader visiting this page will neither be able to glean any useful information about what is objectively a well-publicized story, nor be able to find the single-sentence (and, in my opinion, trivializing) description. I find these arguments really unpersuasive and frankly the effect on the article is, like I said, that the information ends up "buried." I don't see this being consistent with Wikipedia policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay about a policy, and not just a policy but one of the five pillars. "as do similar sections in many articles" = WP:OTHERSTUFF. I think I've been clear that I believe a section header for this allegation violates WP:WEIGHT. I'm not going to change my mind (at least not unless something else happens with these allegations). If consensus agrees with you, I'll abide by it as I always do when consensus is against me. But I don't think we've had that discussion. We haven't even settled on what to say, let alone how to say it. Let's figure out the wording first. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to address WP:NPOV, to which I assume you're referring, then why don't we focus on the ways in which B appears to violate this principle by minimizing the allegations ("shouted at her once," which is not the full story)? And I'm not completely sure what the "something else" you're waiting for is, but we already have a woman who was confirmed to be in a relationship with the subject making very serious, non-trivial allegations of abuse, and the story has been both widely reported on and investigated. The allegations are indeed unproven, though that doesn't make them any less notable, as clearly demonstrated by the WP:RS cited. The arguments that inclusion of any basic level of detail about this matter violates WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, or WP:WEIGHT all sound to me like WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY. I am curious though - you put "shouted at her once," in quotes as if that were quoting something; what was it you were quoting? VQuakr (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's part of the language of Option B. Actually that's an odd paraphrase of Option B ("Ellison once shouted at Monahan and dragged her off of a bed by her feet") and I'm curious as to why you did that since it seems disingenuous to me. You're suggesting Option B is saying that he shouted at her one time, when Option B says he is alleged to have once shouted at her and dragged her off a bed. Very different things.

I don't think Option B violates NPOV in any way. It's an appropriately short summary of the accusation, hence neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not get into who's being "disigenuous" or not and stick to the issues. I quoted that portion because it's laughably inadequate; the sources cited (and there are many) clearly go far beyond her being "shouted at once." She is alleging abuse over a significant length of time, and the incident in which she was screamed at and "dragged off a bed" (see: physical assault) was just one example of that. Beyond that, B is confusing and poorly paraphrases the sources. She has not only "joined in her son's allegations," which really doesn't make sense: she has separately made her own allegations and appeared on television to repeat them. Assuming that we do not know whether these accusations are true or untrue, this is still a far more complex and in-depth controversy that calls for just a single sentence. B is totally inadequate and sounds very biased against the accuser and possible victim, IMHO. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't quote "that portion", you misrepresented it. And you're still misrepresenting it, as the "once" refers to shouting AND dragging. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Yes, I agree. I made a point much earlier that the language in version B is constructed to be favorable to Ellison. Specifically I mention the 'once' word being weasled in, as well as leading the reader by the hand too much at the outset by setting the scene that this all came to attention during the election. Version B is damage limitation for Ellison. Bennycat (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely zero persuasive (or even remotely substantive) arguments have been put forward by proponents of option B. That will have to be accounted for in future edits. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Option B Per WP:BLPGOSSIP – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain what the WP:BLPGOSSIP issue is and how this policy applies? The policy you cited seems to mainly focus on information derived from unreliable sources, and that isn't the case here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Muboshgu cannot explain, and will not explain how Option A violates WP:BLPGOSSIP simply because it doesn't (as you succinctly wrote). Given the vote count of 8-4 in favor of Option B, he/she doesn't need to explain anything, as he/she can bask and gloat in the victory of the vote count.

Based on edits made to the article, there are two additional editors who are likely in favor of Option A, but given that at the moment we need 5 additional votes to change the WP:CONSENSUS in favor of Option A, it's not worth WP:CANVASSING for the votes. That's the reality of editing Wikipedia. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it should probably be mentioned that based on the comment that User:Snow Rise made in this vote tally, it's fairly clear that he/she is in more leaning towards Option A than Option B. Unfortunately, because he/she did not cast his/her comments in the form of a vote with an option clearly labeled and a bold faced font, we cannot use his/her comment in the vote count. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, honestly I'm pretty torn as to which is the more appropriate option under policy (both have issues) and I'd still favour an option in between. But I think the biggest concern here is not the ultimate tally of the !vote, or even the ultimate outcome if the choice is between merely these two option, but rather the continuing invocation of WP:BLPGOSSIP in a completely inappropriate and deeply troubling fashion that does not even remotely map to the wording of that policy language or the context it was meant to serve. BLPGOSSIP exists to keep out fantastical rumours attributed to no one in particular (think of the old urban myth that Richard Gere liked to do sorted things involving gerbils) not to sanitize politicians articles of any reference to fully public accusation of domestic abuse attributed clearly to a known accuser, simply because her claim happens to be, in the idiosyncratic view of this or that Wikipedia editor, not credible, according to the instincts or reasoning of that editor, in a fashion that not a single sentence or clause of BLPGOSSIP even begins to support or justify. That's pretty blatantly WP:Original research of the most problematic sorts, and one of the reasons we have an WP:OR policy is precisely to guard against the infiltration of editor's views (and as a consequence, personal and systemic biases) into our content. But no worries, it's not like the topic of domestic violence and personal assessments of the accuser's believability have ever been known to be vulnerable to systemic bias, right?

Or maybe I didn't see this until I got pinged and so didn't respond sooner. There is a feedback loop in this, known as circular reporting. It's one allegation that was refuted, and nothing else to the story. Option A is WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This is wrong. The fact that interviews have been given by both sides make it more than just "circular reporting," that's an absurd construction of that particular policy. Furthermore, the fact that it has been picked up by national WP:RS shows that WP:DUE is satisfied. I know that you consider these allegations "political mudslinging" as you said earlier, which sounds like WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, but your objections are directly contradicted by Wikipedia policy, and I think it's a shame that such faulty arguments are dominating the discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually think the problems with option A are equal or greater than those implicit to option B, but I still urge anyone supporting option B via a WP:BLPGOSSIP rationale to go review and see if the wording of that section actually tracks at all with what they assumed it meant, because the wording is very succinct and straight-forward, and lays out five tests for its applicability, not a single one of which is met here. It may not matter as regards this particular discussion, but it could the next time they use it, and there's far too much sloppy misapplication of BLP going on across the project of late, in my opinion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Six of the eight votes in favor of Option B rely on the unsupported WP:BLPGOSSIP rationale. If we could throw out those votes, that leaves the vote count at 4-2 in favor of Option A. BarbadosKen (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't advocate for throwing their !votes out in their entirety and I'm certain any effort to summarily dismiss their perspectives will only further polarize discussion here, when there's a massive gulf of unexplored middle ground between the two proposals. If you attempt to pick up my (admittedly very strong) criticism of how BLPGOSSIP has been haphzardly applied here as a rationale for flipping the !vote ratios, here's what is most the most probable outcome, even in a best case scenario: those editors who support the option you are opposed to will go review the policy language but now, instead of there being some small chance that they might reconsider if the policy actually applies as previously invoked here, they will now have the extra incentive to rationalize (consciously or subconciously) their previous !vote, in order to square it with the content option that genuinely seems more appropriate to them (which may actually be the better option, because there are multiple factors at work here when weighing the alternative proposals). And probably, given the audacity of having the other side try to nullify their !vote in that way, they will double down on their perspective as to which is the better option and discussion will become even more entrenched. So not only will you further entrench discussion here and pretty much guarantee that neither your preferred option nor a third option is adopted, but you will have helped cement the mistaken reading of BLPGOSSIP which was the very focus of my previous comment, with possible consequences to other articles. So please don't do that. As I've said repeatedly, there may be genuine reasons to prefer B over A. I simply happen to disagree that BLPGOSSIP is one such concern (because it clearly isn't from even the briefest of reviews of what it actually says). But that doesn't mean you can try to disregard more than half of the !votes made here, wholesale. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

BarbadosKen I'm sorry to hear you say that, but again, this is just wrong. Let me quote from WP:CONSENSUS: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. " Frankly I think this perfectly applies to this discussion, though of course there's no point in continuing a debate when one side refuses to engage. The page should be edited accordingly in the following days, especially considering the additional coverage on this matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Be very careful. I tried to put Option A into the article on the basis that the vote count is irrelevant, and it's about the content of the discussion. That was back when the vote count was 4-3 in favor of Option B. I was swiftly reverted.

The administrators are required to remain neutral, and only care about the stability of the article (i.e. they do not want to see edit wars). They do not care which option is more complete more comprehensive (and of course, supported by WP:RS) because that would require them to take sides in the discussion. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Option B: per WP:BLP and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Gets to the heart of the matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Option B Summoned by a bot - per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Comatmebro (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Option A, but I would prefer some trimming (which could also be discussed after this RFC):

Mention of "significant media attention" or Ellison's reaffirmation are superfluous. Mentioning the lack of evidence in text messages seems out of place if there is no allegation about what the text messages are supposed to show, so I would oppose mentioning the text messages without proper context, though my opposition for this is not very strong. Mentioning the video is obviously WP:DUE – I remember seeing only one article about the allegations that does not mention the alleged video.

Version B does not mention the video or the uncontroversial fact that Ellison and Monahan were in relationship. Including those details would not run against BLP or BLPGOSSIP as many have claimed without elaborating how those policies apply. Politrukki (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Version B identifies Monahan as Ellison's ex-girlfriend, a characterization that I agree is uncontroversial. Can you explain why that does not cover the fact that Ellison and Monahan were in relationship in your view? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I totally misread that part. I'm striking part of my comment. Many thanks for pointing that out! Now could you explain which parts in version A, the original or mine, violate BLP and more specifically BLPGOSSIP and tell your opinion how you would improve version A? Politrukki (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Now could you explain which parts in version A, the original or mine, violate BLP?, No they cannot because there is no violation, and they will not because the current vote count is 8 to 4 for version B. Therefore, the Version B side can simply enjoy their victory in which they frivolously throw Wikipedia policies without any substantiation to their claims. The fact that Version A is actually more favorable to Keith Ellison is of no interest to them. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no "victory" from the results of a straw poll wrong per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PNSD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It's another victory for aggressive activist editors. I think the pendulum will swing back in favor of more independent coverage, but it probably has to slide further into blatant censorship and obvious coddling of political favorites, illustrated to absolute perfection here, before anything much changes for the better. Bennycat (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Bennycat Absolutely not. Read the policy above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Per the discussion above, it is clear that the abuse allegations against Ellison are noteworthy and there are numerous credible news sources that have reported on the allegations.

Those arguing against inclusion or for minimizing/making the information less conspicuous by refusing to allow editors to insert it under a separate subheader are treating the allegations as if they were still just unconfirmed accusations made through social media. That may have been how they started, but it has since become a national story that has been investigated and reported on by news outlets like CNN, the NYT, Reuters, and AP. Clearly the information belongs in the article. Furthermore, it is not "excessive detail" to include basic information about the allegations, including the claims of verbal and physical abuse, namely one specific incident that was described in the NYT, and the alleged existence of a tape of a physical altercation and corroborating text messages, which were also heavily reported on. Ellison himself has also publicly responded to these specific allegations both in a statement and a televised interview.

As long as the description includes both the accuser's and Ellison's accounts, it is not in violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore, charges of WP:RECENTISM and Undue Weight are also unfounded. Relative to the length of the article, the description of these objectively noteworthy events in just a few lines does not appear to violate either policy.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

unconfirmed accusations made through social media" <-- They ARE unconfirmed accusations made through social media. There are NO "corroborating text messages". And yes, it IS a violation of BLP if it's given UNDUE weight, which is what the "long" version does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The last sentence in "Option A" should be removed. There is no need to put into the article that Ellison has repeated his denials. As long as he does not change his stance, there is no need to mention that he continues to go with the same position, because that's the default. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should also add to the paragraph Ellison's claim that Monahan has contacted him in May 2018 when she needed assistance. This used to be included in this version of the article. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here I will disagree. I don't think those details of their relationship are relevant. In addition, I think that Ellison's addressing and denying the allegations in a televised interview is in of itself notable. I see what you are saying, and I think it should be included to maintain balance, but I'm open to what others think. However, I'm absolutely opposed to including any further details about the complexities of their relationship. Also, I think that her allegedly "contacting him when she needed help" is irrelevant and sounds like victim-blaming. In striving for balance, we should not tip the scale towards Ellison or his accuser.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is that they are no longer "just unconfirmed accusations." But that is exactly what they are, accusations that are unconfirmed. TFD (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No. They are allegations which have been denied, and the supposed evidence that exists to corroborate the allegations has been called into question. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You mean alternative facts? TFD (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It's becoming a little difficult to understand the quibbles coming from editors seeking to reduce the allegations content to the barest bones possible when we have [[10]] and especially [[11]], with its incredibly microscopic detail, but nevertheless offering an example of an article chock-full of things that are 'only allegations' but still somehow pass wiki-administrative and BLP muster. Ellison is likewise a major political figure. While I would not for a moment support the same level of detail as the second example above being attached to this issue, as editors we should strive for impartiality, and avoid coddling and favoring certain figures by doing a bit of biased damage control on their behalf - thoroughly represented by Option B. Option B omits important facts, primarily concerning the existence of an alleged video (very WIDELY reported). Option B's brevity necessarily applies much more weight to its first notion: 'Three days before the 2018 primary election...', too. It uses dismissive language: 'Ellison once shouted at Monahan...' Who hasn't been shouted at, at least once? What's the big deal?; leading the reader by the hand too much I think. We should reflect here what has been widely published by the reliable sources, that's it. And that is in line and reflected much more in Option A, than B.Bennycat (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No, my argument is that they are no longer "just made through social media." Obviously they are unconfirmed. The fact that they have been reported on extensively & acknowledged by Ellison means they can't be excluded.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we start by discussing whether the current description is adequate. It sounds like we've already resolved that the allegations should be included with supporting details, including the video and the instance described by the NYT.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think that's been resolved quite yet. We haven't really heard a great deal from Option B's supporters. Although I think that's about to hit. We should let the RfC run its course, because it's likely to be very contentious at best, if previous discussions are anything to go by.Bennycat (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would add that the comparison to the Trump article is somewhat misguided, because that article deals with a subject which is objectively far more notable and on which there has been significantly more reporting. A better reference would be another similar notable politican (of either party) against whom similar allegations have been leveled. Agree with the point that the allegations should not be minimized or otherwise trimmed down so that they provide hardly any information.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course Trump is more notable but I think the fact that there is a lengthy article devoted to allegations - that in itself, together with the excruciating level of detail contained in each allegation adds weight to the argument that we should not be constricting what has been similarly widely reported on Ellison, by omitting important factual detail. To me that would be a contradiction. Bennycat (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, if I understand your position, you think we should draw a distinction between allegations that have been made on social media and when the social media allegations have been reported in the media. In fact we do. Allegations only reported in social media cannot be reported in biographies of living persons per "Avoid self-published sources" ("Never use self-published sources....") The very fact the article mentions something means it has at least some importance. Media choose to carry allegations based on their assessment of the believability of the claims and the person or persons making them. But we do not know how credible the claims are and should not guess.

Also, the Trump article is irrelevant to this one, since we would first have to assume that it has strictly followed BLP. If you check the talk page archives of that article, you will see that I made a number of challenges to how allegations against Trump were reported. Don't make the assumption that I apply a different standard for Republicans and Democrats.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I certainly was not assuming anything about your particular conduct on other articles. I apologize if I have given you that impression. I applaud anyone here who casts an impartial eye over articles and applies the same standard regardless of the subject. That's exactly what we should be doing. Bennycat (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems that all those who do not want this in the article (or are willing to allow very little coverage in the article) are failing to understand that it is no longer a matter of accusations on social media. The woman went on CBS News and made the accusations. The accusations have now been widely reported, so there are no WP:BLP concerns when quoting WP:RS. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

...there are no WP:BLP concerns when quoting WP:RS. Um, you do realize this is wildly incorrect, right? VQuakr (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Show me where in WP:BLP does it say that quoting WP:RS is not acceptable? BarbadosKen (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@BarbadosKen: Right at the top: "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." WP:RS is obviously part of the equation, but not the totality of it. Context matters when establishing reliability, and (for example) a blatant WP:COATRACK article could be immaculately sourced while still being a huge BLP violation. Since in our case no one is disputing whether reliable sources are available, your focus on RS here is a red herring. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You have absolutely failed to show how the material in Option A is a violation of WP:BLP. You keep bringing up gossip. It's not gossip if it's quoted in the NY Times and NY Magazine. I see your WP:BLP "concerns" as a means for the agenda that you are trying to push. BarbadosKen (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Bit of a subject change, but ok. A review of this talk page confirms that I haven't called the allegations gossip, I have cited a section of our policy called WP:BLPGOSSIP (as one of several concerns including weight and recentism). That distinction is germane in this case. I would agree that the allegations are not really gossip per se; they better match the more academic definition of a rumor. VQuakr (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see the WP:BLP issue as long as we stick to what has been publicly reported and include a balanced description of the statements by both parties. That’s exactly what Option A does. And I think we have resolved that this matter is has gone beyond just “gossip.” Finally, the idea that we shouldn’t include any reasonable amount of detail because it won’t pass he test of time is historically inaccurate. Example: Nearly two decades after the Bill Clinton sex scandal, the details of those events are still very much matters of public interest.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

See Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. We are supposed to follow the weight in reliable sources. And note that Clinton was impeached following those accusations which is what gave them lasting significance, in addition that some of the claims were actually admitted by him. TFD (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

...and include a balanced description of the statements by both parties. No, this is incorrect per WP:GEVAL and (particularly in our case) WP:BALASP. Coverage of this particular "story of the day" cannot be allowed to have outsized coverage in the overall article. We have a heckuva lot more coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky thing than anyone is considering for the current subject, and with good reason. But so what? We don't WP:CRYSTAL the significance of events (even for subjects without BLP concerns). Had WP been around in the nineties, the coverage of the C-L scandal would have slowly grown over time in proportion to its repercussions and coverage. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

For a domestic abuse allegation against a prominent politician that has received national news coverage, with both the accused and the accuser issuing written statements and appearing on television to address the matter, it is appropriate to dedicate more than a single sentence, especially when that sentence omits information that is central to the story. The WL:BLP arguments have fallen flat and you are no longer defending them; now we move on to WP:BALASP. There is no "false equivalency" in saying that for allegations of this nature, it is reasonable to include a neutral description both the basic allegations that have been reported by credible sources, and the article subject's (Ellison's) response. I don't see that as either "excessive" or "overly detailed," and I reiterate that Option A is the superior choice for addressing the matter and preserving the integrity of this article.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not proposed coverage in a single sentence. Just because I didn't mention BLP in my most recent post does not mean I am "no longer defending" my concerns there. Can you identify what information you find central to the story? VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what I described earlier: The nature of the alleged abuse as described by Ellison's accuser, the evidence that she has provided or claims to possess and which has been a focus of much reporting, independent news organization's analysis of said evidence (MPR News and text messages) and Ellison's very public denials are all relevant details. Option A covers all of those; Option B covers none of it, and is frankly poorly written.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There are reams of discussion above; unwillingness to endure further bludgeoning from you is understandable. I suggest you seek closure by an uninvolved admin if you do not think there is a clear consensus in the discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a step I think might be appropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the allegations of abuse levelled against Keith Ellison in this article? It should go under "Issues and controversies". [12][13][14][15][16]--2001:8003:4023:D900:9992:AC05:EBDE:6454 (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Me and several other editors have been advocating for this for weeks. A few more editors have falsely asserted that to do so violates WP:BLP. Take a look at the threads above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There is mention of them. VQuakr (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr would you explain this revert? my edit summary Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's time to start raising the issues of WP:ADVOCACY. The revert above by VQuakr demonstrates exactly what I'm concerned about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't link a revert above. But assuming you mean my recent edit to the article, I think my edit summary was pretty self-explanatory. I suggest you start a new section if you want to propose an edit; hijacking this one seems illogical. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who made the revert without consulting the Talk page. I added new information which has not previously been addressed. Rather than filibustering by reverting and demanding "discussion," why don't you engage in that discussion and explain the specific basis for your revert? And please refrain from posting templates on my talk page. That type of conduct can easily interpreted as aggressive and WP:AOHA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ellison is currently under investigation for the domestic abuse allegations made against him by Karen Monahan by the Minnesota Democratic Party. He also called for a House Ethics Committee investigation into himself, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed that it was appropriate. Here are the sources: ^[15][16]. These need to be included with a description of the specific allegations in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"With a description of the specific allegations in the article" sounds like a rehash of the RfC above, though I am not 100% clear on what you are saying. Last we discussed you were going to pursue formal closure if the consensus wasn't clear to you.

The proposed edit has several problems. It repeats the WP:BLP concerns raised previously by affording the allegations undue weight due to the repetition. The possibility of a House investigation doesn't seem relevant enough to warrant mention (see WP:10YT), nor does the existence of a state-level party investigation (once/if something is released, let's review).

The proposed removal of "alleged on social media" would be fine with me, since the platform of the allegation isn't very important. I'd be fine with removing the mention of Monahan's adult son, too, if we don't think that is important at this point. What do others think? VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr I agree with your points on the revising what's currently in the article. I'm going to go further and say that we should not note how long before the primary they took place: that is irrelevant and a potential NPOV problem. It's clearly meant to suggest that the allegations may be political in nature, which is inappropriate. Second, I'm not sure I understand your argument above: prominent, WP:RS sources are reporting dual investigations into the subject, which are clearly of note.

Also, I keep hearing "let's wait until more, let's wait until more," but these seemingly arbitrary standards for WP:BLP and WP:DUE that you and certain other editors are setting are unsupported by Wikipedia policy. And lastly, what were the specific BLP concerns that you had? BLP dictates that libelous information never be included and that controversial information be sourced; it does not preclude controversial or "negative" information from being included in a biographical article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The temporal proximity to the primary election was broadly noted in contemporaneous accounts. No, it isn't "meant" to suggest anything regarding the nature of the allegations. "Dual investigations"?! One of them is hypothetical, the other has released no actual information germane to the subject of this article. Just because something is verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion in any article, and per policy it is the responsibility of the editor proposing an addition to achieve consensus for the addition.

Among many other relevant things, BLP directs us to edit information about living persons "with the greatest care". This standard precludes breathlessly copying every information-devoid churn of the news cycle. That particular part is also a subjective standard, which is why careful discussion is so important (as opposed to WP:RECKLESS additions) when dealing with controversial matter in a BLP. There has been a clear majority (though you and I are probably both too close to the topic to evaluate actual consensus) of editors in the extensive discussion above that agree caution is warranted. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

One of the investigations (House) is very likely to be initiated soon according to the source, and the other, by the state party, is pending; just because it hasn't concluded doesn't mean it has to be omitted. In fact, it is highly relevant to the subject and supported by WP:RS. Besides, wouldn't mentioning the fact that the article's subject called for an investigation into himself seem to reflect favorably? I don't understand how my edits were "reckless." If you review what I wrote, you may notice that I took great care to make sure to only mention the "alleged" conduct and abide strictly by what was reported in the sources. I don't see how what I posted was such an emergency that it warranted immediate removal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If the House investigation is initiated, I would urge editors to include this information in the article, as it would definitely be important and noteworthy enough to include it. VQuakr is right that we should not include it now due to its hypothetical nature. Most of politics is hypothetical grandstanding, and we can't weigh articles down with it all. Although, by way of comparison, it's of great interest that all this caution and hand-wringing is not being afforded to a figure dominating the current news cycle facing abuse allegations. But of course, that's not an apples to apples comparison or WP:abcxyz or ______ fill in the blank.Bennycat (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This is beyond "caution." Insertion of any information about this event, no matter how relevant or supported by WP:RS, is immediately removed by editors like VQuakr who cry BLP. He even acknowledged that he's applying a "subjective" standard, one which I will reiterate is completely unsupported by Wikipedia policy. Notice how he also removed the information about the medical records the accuser released without explanation? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is necessarily 'subjective', because how do you measure the weight of information or how 'undue' it is? You can't, so you apply your own subjective standard. But you can absolutely say that the very same standards with regard to BLP, GOSSIP, UNDUE and all the rest, that singular editors have constructed and are applying to this article, they are not applying to other, shall we say 'less favorable' political figures. This is where the subjective standard is informed by political bias, and it seems to me that Wikipedia policy has been wholly inadequate in dealing with this problem, and admins are just not interested in kicking the hornets nest bar the occasional token slap on the wrist.Bennycat (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There is so much back-and-forth on this talk page about the domestic violence allegation that it's overwhelming. After all the arguing back and forth, I see only two sentences in the "personal life" section that relate to this situation, which has now been national news for over a month. That doesn't come close to doing justice to the significance of the allegation. I also take issue with the fact that the first sentence begins "Three days before the 2018 primary election for state attorney general..."; this seems to point the reader to the conclusion that the allegation is nothing but a political stunt. I propose that the following language be added to the section on Ellison's race for Minnesota Attorney General:

In August 2018, shortly before the primary election for Minnesota Attorney General, the adult son of Ellison's ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, alleged on social media that he saw a video on his mother's computer showing Ellison shouting obscenities at Monahan and dragging her off of a bed by her feet. Monahan later stated that her son's allegation was true and gave a detailed account of the alleged attack.^[10][17] In a statement, Ellison said, "'Karen and I were in a relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being... This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false'".^[18] On September 25, 2018, the Chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman stated that the results of the Party's investigation of the Ellison allegation would be released soon.^[19] On September 26, 2018, Ellison called for a separate investigation by the House Ethics Committee; House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi agreed that such an investigation would be appropriate.^[20]

Judging by the level of conflict over this issue, I believe third-party involvement may be necessary, but I wanted to at least attempt to get consensus here first. Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@SunCrow: Wikieditor19920 also recently mentioned the concern that "Three days before the 2018 primary election..." was too leading. I don't see the problem, and I really don't see any difference at all between that and your proposed "In August 2018, shortly before the primary election for Minnesota Attorney General...", because that seems to have the same connotation. How about just "In August 2018, the adult son..." to avoid the juxtaposition altogether?

With regard to the weight of coverage overall, there was a recent RfC focused on that exact issue, so I do not think a rehash is warranted so soon. A hypothetical future investigation and the existence of another for which some real information might be known someday are not relevant enough to the subject of this article to merit mention. VQuakr (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr, I see that there was an RfC on this issue. I must admit that I did not read every word of the discussion there (or the rest of the back-and-forth surrounding it) because I don't have all night and I might be driven bonkers if I attempted to read through all that stuff. However, I honestly don't see that consensus was ever reached. Am I missing something? SunCrow (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@SunCrow: Any thoughts on the first half of my reply? Yes, there was quite clear, well-attended, and recent consensus not to expand the coverage of this, with passionate disagreement by a significant minority and (near?) unanimity that neither option discussed was perfect. VQuakr (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr, I have no objection to your proposed edit regarding the timing of the accusation. Thank you for letting me know about the RfC. I respectfully disagree with the consensus position. I may still seek third party involvement. SunCrow (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say again that I don't think that there's been any WP:CONSENSUS whatsoever per WP:PNSD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

[17], [18]. VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SunCrow I would strongly advocate for third party involvement. Unfortunately, this discussion has been railroaded by overwrought claims of WP:BLP, questionable claims of WP:DUE (which led to a ridiculous exchange over whether or not national news coverage constitutes "traction") and, in my opinion, disregard for issues like WP:NPOV (the emphasis on the timing of the allegations, as if to cast doubt or imply some political motive) and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Obviously, the allegations should be covered, and your suggestion seems the only way to resolve this and avoid further edit warring and section blanking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If I could just suggest a slightly different version that captures what SunCrow was getting at above: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs)

National news for over a month" *cough cough*. That's seriously overstating the case, though there's some still distributing phony memes. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's really not. The allegations and surrounding drama received two full-page stories in the NYT, multiple articles in CNN, Reuters, AP, you name it... I mean, let's be honest here. I won't cite all the sources again, but I think a quick Google search would corroborate what he's saying. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikieditor19920. Your revised paragraph works for me, although it needs a reference for the updated info on the investigation results. Let's give the discussion a couple of days and then, if needed, go to Wikipedia:DRN. SunCrow (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: the last sentence of your collapsed section above, starting with "The Minnesota Democratic Party conducted...." is not supported by the source provided. VQuakr (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the source. [19] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof since you didn't bother to do so yourself, would you mind explaining your WP:STONEWALLING when it is clear that this story is a prominent part of the local and national news cycle? Here's one example from yesterday.[20] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for your proposed change, and you haven't even attempted to gain consensus for the change. I disagree that there is any justification for an entire separate subheading on this, and on the contrary, it places undue weight on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This is false. You should read what I just linked. The subject clearly meets WP:DUE and placing it under a separate subheader in no way violates this clause. Your claim is ridiculous on its face. Your and others' continued demands for "consensus" for wholly legitimate edits (see: WP:STONEWALLING) would necessitate either redefining Wikipedia policy or placing local consensus over the broad consensus under which the policy was formulated. WP:DUE was never written to suppress or validate the blanking of sourced, noteable content. The relevant policies here are WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:RS, both of which you unfortunately ignored or disregarded. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: no, you are attempting to game the system by making up criteria. This is what the actual policy says: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We have already discussed this, ad nauseum, and you have not achieved consensus to expand the article in this subject area. Referencing the result of the discussion is not stonewalling, and your attempts to frame it as such are tendentious. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That onus is more than met by the WP:RS that have already been provided. The continued efforts to revert the inclusion of any such information are WP:STONEWALLING. I am not WP:GAMING whatsoever; I am arguing for improvements to this article based on the standards that are typically applied on such pages and supported by Wikipedia policy, though apparently some editors do not view the addition of potentially controversial information as an improvement. That's unfortunately contrary to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, VQuakr, you might want to read the relevant part of WP:DUE 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. before you accuse me of "making things up." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Respecting the existing consensus while inviting further discussion isn't stonewalling. Your repetition won't make your claims more true. Citing WP:PUBLICFIGURE is countering an argument that no one has made (that the material shouldn't be included out of respect for Ellison's privacy). The WP:ONUS references consensus, not sources. I know what WP:DUE says. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you personally believe something to be true does not allow you to ignore consensus in the pursuit of WP:TRUTH. The fact is that you don't have consensus for your proposed change, and therefore you may not implement it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me cite the relevant portion of WP:PUBLICFIGURE for both of you: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This policy, which clearly applies here, not only permits but explicitly requires that controversial information be included in proportion to coverage, provided that it is described objectively with independent sources, and both of your repeated blanking of this page appears in direct contradiction of this policy. Second, that RfC is beyond stale. There is no such thing as a binding consensus that allows for one of Wikipedia's central tenets to be ignored on any particular article.

The earlier claims that were made in the previous RfC that the enormous amount of coverage dedicated to this story do not meet WP:DUE are even more dubious considering the continued fallout and reporting that's occurred in the month since. And in response to NorthBySouthBaranof, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are suggesting that I am arguing that the allegations are true or that my edits have implied them to be true, you have not carefully read either my comments or my edits. I never said anything of the sort, and indeed I actually argued very strongly for the allegations to be discussed in precisely those terms. I wouldn't have to make these arguments at length if you two would read the policies, instead of simply citing them to justify further blanking and WP:STONEWALLING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Doubling down on the repetition, I see. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is a subsection of the section on Presumption in favor of privacy - you are countering a privacy-based argument that no one has made while attempting to quote a section of policy jarringly out of context. We agree that the allegations should be mentioned, but disagree on what represents due weight of coverage. You accusation of "blanking" is untrue, as is your claim that the level of coverage since the RfC has been "massive". You don't get to simply ignore the results of a discussion because you happen to disagree with the result. If you did have this right, any discussion would be pointless and we would just wait for you to dictate the contents of the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE fits into the broader policy of WP:BLP and is clearly applicable here. I see you've gone ahead and blanked the section again. Claims of WP:DUE are frivolous based on the level of coverage these allegations have received, and what's currently in the article is totally insufficient based on the extent of coverage. Also, I've heard WP:DUE almost as many times as I've seen the subject's name in the news in regards to these allegations, so let's not get into who's repeating themselves. And ideally we'd be able to come to some sort of agreement that goes beyond just two sentences, but unfortunately it doesn't seem like we've reached that point yet. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"The broader policy of WP:BLP" is to edit with caution. I haven't blanked anything; the accusation is a spurious accusation of vandalism. It becomes hard to take you seriously when you continuously come up with such easily debunkable falsehoods. You've heard about WP:DUE from the multiple editors who disagree with your proposal and with your characterization of the coverage. Key difference. VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please. You've "debunked" nothing, and consider reading WP:CIVIL. WP:BLP is a set of general guidelines and WP:PUBLICFIGURE is one of them. Second, your WP:DUE argument has little basis because here's what the policy says: 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. You're simply ignoring the level of coverage because it doesn't suit your personal opinion that you don't think the story matters. And finally, the RfC only asked for input on two options for the text: just because the straw poll came out in favor of the shorter one doesn't mean that the article must now be frozen as is in light of new coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't need to be frozen. However, this is still a contentious BLP, and there isn't an admin on en-wikipedia who will let you get away with editing against clear consensus. You're already taking up huge amounts of space on this talk page, throwing around policy after policy, failing all the while to take into account that you simply don't have consensus. I don't know how VQuakr feels (they have such an odd user name I can never tell how they feel), but if I were in their shoes I'd be thinking that all this is getting a little disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing against consensus not what I proposed whatsoever, though I think it's also important to clarify what that consensus is. Disagreements are in fact permitted, and coming in and using terms like "disruptive" when I've abided by consensus and discretionary sanctions is not assuming good faith. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone have thoughts re this? VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time we revisit this issue an actually start observing policy. The text can be left as is, but this deserves its own subsection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The section covering the abuse charges needs to be expanded. Bare-bones details (basically key omissions) are not acceptable with the range, quantity, and depth of coverage available on this from heavily reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We had an RfC on this, which pretty clearly didn't show consensus to expand the section. What has changed since then? VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The RfC was never closed, and the matter received sustained attention from reliable sources over the course of that RfC and after. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Formal RfC closure isn't mandatory. Examples of sustained coverage? VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not, but an RfC which was never closed shouldn't be presented as a reason not to take action on something. WP:YOUCANSEARCH and there are at least five pieces on the allegations from the NYT alone.[21][22][23][24][25]Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course the RfC is a reason to not unilaterally begin adding the contested content. The lack of (completely optional) formal closure doesn't mean the discussion never happened. Per WP:CONLEVEL, you need to establish a similar level of consensus to include. WP:YOUCANSEARCH is an essay (and you have breached WP:AGF by citing it since it is about filibuster/WP:SEALION type requests). WP:BURDEN is the relevant policy - as an editor bringing up a proposal to add content, you are expected produce the proposal (and establish consensus). All sources you provided are from late 2018; they are not evidence supporting your claim of "sustained attention". VQuakr (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with VQuakr. The amount of detail added for what an investigation found to be unsubstantiated is absurd. nableezy - 20:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wikilitigating with you over whether or not my editor was "unilateral." It wasn't against any established consensus, consensus is subject to change, and even though the editing process is collaborate, any individual edit can be characterized as "unilateral," which is a loaded and essentially meaningless term in this context. A number of strong arguments were made in favor of conclusion, based on the prevalence of reliable sources. The arguments against were not grounded in policy in many instances ("there were no criminal charges" "the media is being political in reporting on this") and where they were, they were extremely weak ("including this is a BLP violation" (it isn't—see WP:VERIFIABILITY and [[WP:BLP]) and "WP:BLPGOSSIP means we can't include it" ("gossip" refers to the quality of the source, not the nature of the accusation, and the sources were top-notch). And "sustained" means over a significant period of time, not ongoing, and these allegations were covered for the duration of the race. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I doubt this is a surprise to you, but I don't accept you as a neutral arbiter of which arguments were strong or weak. Since the RfC, investigations into the accusations have found the accusations were unsubstantiated, so the argument to expand the section has gotten inherently weaker, not stronger. Particularly in the absence of evidence of continuing coverage. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Funny, didn't you just ask me to WP:AGF? I'm willing to logically explain how I draw my conclusions; if you came to a different one, I encourage you to do the same. A "not guilty" or "unsubstantiated" verdict or finding, whether it be by a law enforcement agency, jury, or independent investigator (as was the case here) does not diminish the significance of a matter if its been substantially addressed by reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a new one. I agree that with the findings that the argument for inclusion at all has gotten weaker, and the idea that it should be expanded further instead of potentially reduced to be rather out there. nableezy - 21:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to follow up with me on user talk if you think I violated that policy (hint: I didn't). I'm not going to WP:REHASH the same reasoning from six months ago if you have nothing new to propose. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps that concept is something new if you live under a rock, but the coverage of a subject in an article should always be proportional to the level of sources that have reported on it. My expansion was modest at best with no more than five lines, which pales in comparison to the degree of attention the abuse allegations received from prominent, major news outlets. "Continued coverage" is a made-up standard that doesn't exist (if there were ongoing coverage, I'm sure I'd hear an argument about recentism)—we look at the body of coverage, and it's substantial. This warrants addressing the issue in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps your condescension would be better directed elsewhere. The issue is already addressed in the article. nableezy - 03:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Not in proportion to the sources, and this kind of minimization violates WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. And no it doesnt. I can make blanket statements too. nableezy - 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Several dozen articles covered the allegations, including at least five from the New York Times; what we currently have is two brief sentences light on any detail or substance. Sorry, that's not WP:PROPORTION. Check your talk page and discontinue your WP:HOUNDING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I am shortly going to post a list of prominent, reliable sources and pieces on this talk page, organized by month, showing the depth and range of coverage during the campaign. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Try to not dishonestly present sources from prior to the investigation as showing something that was later proven to be false. As far as "hounding", that might be taken more seriously if it were not so obviously hypocritical. nableezy - 14:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And oh by the way there are some 32,000 news articles discussing Ellison. A dozen news reports about an accusation that was then investigated and found to be baseless does not merit any more space here. As VQuakr wrote Since the RfC, investigations into the accusations have found the accusations were unsubstantiated, so the argument to expand the section has gotten inherently weaker, not stronger. nableezy - 15:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

These arguments are just incoherent nonsense, and I'm not going to further discuss your conduct issues on this page. WP:GHITS are meaningless - weight is not a math formula, it's a nuanced analysis based on coverage in reliable sources, and this was the most prominent aspect of the Minnesota AG's race. Whether or not the allegations can be proven true is not at issue here - this isn't a court of law, this is an encyclopedia that relies on what's been covered in reliable sources, and these allegations were. Some gems from the "discussion" that took place last year included editors calling the coverage political motivated mudslinging, saying that unless the allegations resulted in criminal charges, they were undue, and that they were unproven (duh) or that it somehow constituted "gossip." The notion that these appallingly ill-informed arguments should hold any water is laughable. The section should reflect the degree of coverage in the sources, not editors' desire to minimize a controversial event. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for your additions, so they've been reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Point me to this alleged consensus against including it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, this thread right here, where you clearly don't have any consensus to include it, is pretty clear. If you think more input is needed, launch another RFC. But you are the only person on this talk page arguing for inclusion of the material, in the face of clear objections from multiple editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Objections without any reasonable basis (one alludes to a false consensus, the other on Google hits) is disruptive WP:STONEWALLING. I'm tempted to pull some of the gems from the last discussion to show the extent of this problem on this topic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not the judge of what is reasonable. Please read WP:ONUS. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You very clearly do not have consensus for your additions. Kindly cease edit-warring. And also please do not misrepresent others arguments. My reply on ghits was in response to the silly claim that because "several dozen" articles (nearly all predate the investigation that found the accusations to be baseless) include something that means we must expand that section. You cannot both cite the number of sources for something as proof that it should be included and then complain about somebody citing the number of sources for something. Or you can, but that just means that there is one more hypocritical argument being made by your good self. nableezy - 18:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that we don't treat reliable sources and unreliable sources the same and GHITs aggregates the two. If we were to look at all of the reliable sources that covered the Minnesota AG race, particularly the most reliable ones like the NYT, the vast, vast majority cover the allegations. And WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we document what those sources say, not pick and choose or minimize the information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No, youre missing that I said news sources. Not all google hits. We also cover the allegations, with due weight. You seemingly expect us to ignore that there was an investigation here. One that found the accusations to be baseless. nableezy - 18:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A "news hits" search that yields 32,000 results is equally unreliable. And the investigation commissioned by the DFL found them "unsubstantiated," not "baseless." Try to be more careful in your language, the accuser is just as entitled to BLP protections. Furthermore, and I've said this before, the disposition of the allegations does not make them carry any less weight. The same goes for Brett Kavanaugh and any other BLP on someone who's been publicly accused of a crime or misconduct. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Lol, you do know what the word "unsubstantiated" means, right? You may want to pick up a thesaurus, where you will find under synonyms the word "baseless". And if the word synonym is a problem, here. You certainly can hold that opinion, others apparently do not. Including two of us here. nableezy - 19:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that it has any impact on the WP:WEIGHT of the allegations, but "baseless" and "unsubstantiated" have completely different connotations, and only one of them was used by the sources. Why don't we just stick to what the sources have said rather than your own paraphrasing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you see my adding anything to the article here? Guess that doesnt matter if we are being this pedantic. nableezy - 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The domestic abuse allegations should not be part of the section "Race for Minnesota Attorney General", unless the intention is to show the abuse allegations were politically motivated to smear his campaign, or worse, to make a connection between the two to smear his campaign via this Wikipedia article. Domestic abuse might be in the "Personal" section as part of his personal relationships. -- GreenC 19:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was a public, political scandal that emerged during and deeply impacted the Minnesota AG race. Sections on campaigns regularly cover scandals that occurred during them. Suggest you strike your comments about it being a "politically motivated.. smear" unless you have the sources to support it; this is not a WP:FORUM and your speculation is inappropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well several of us apparently do think so. The amount of material dedicated to what an investigation found to be baseless accusations is already more than necessary. nableezy - 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Minimizing and/or whitewashing a prominent controversy based on a simple majority and nothing else is disruptive; it's not up to a small group of editors to contradict WP:NPOV. Keep it up and you can expect formal dispute resolution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And again, "baseless" is an incorrect description of the accusations, and neither your nor GreenC's personal opinions about the accuser or their allegations are in any way relevant. You should start deferring to what the sources have reported and stop treating this like a WP:FORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No its not, the investigation found the accusation to be unsubstantiated. As demonstrated earlier, baseless is synonymous with unsubstantiated. It is not my personal opinion, it is the view of the independent investigation that the accusations were without merit. Do whatever you want, but absent a consensus for inclusion the addition stays out per WP:ONUS. nableezy - 21:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct, it was reported that the DFL investigation found the accusation "unsubstantiated." Are you now suggesting that if an accusation is unproven, it doesn't carry weight, regardless of the sources addressing it? I think you might find some resistance to that (very flawed) reasoning on more than a few pages. And frankly, WP:FORUM comments would carry no weight in an RfC discussion, and I don't see why they should here. I would like to hear some more balanced opinions on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not in a position to determine whose comments carry weight. You do not decide these things. You are not in charge here. Im sorry if you are under the misimpression that you are, but that really seems like a personal problem. If you want to open an RFC go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But here, in this discussion, every single person who has commented besides you has disagreed with you. There was already an RFC on this subject, one that concluded prior to the investigation that found the accusations baseless. Its conclusion likewise doesnt show any consensus for further expansion, and the case for such an expansion has, as a number of us have said, been reduced by the investigation that found the accusation to be baseless. nableezy - 23:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Any editor who can back up their claim with evidence (see: sources) is entitled to assert that something has WP:WEIGHT, something I'm more than happy to do (and have done). I'd encourage you to do the same with your arguments. And did you just say that an RfC "found" the accusations to be "baseless?" I wasn't aware that the purpose of an RfC was to investigate an accuser's claims. I also didn't notice that discussion ever formally being closed, but please point me to what you're looking at if you've found such a consensus. Likewise, a number of editors evaluating the claims themselves rather than the sources covering them has nothing to do with policy, and consensus is not a vote count. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the only thing worth responding to here is if I said an RFC found the accusations to be baseless. No, I did not say that. I said the RFC concluded prior to the investigation that found the accusations to be baseless. And that, since that time, given the investigation that found the accusation to be baseless, the case for expansion has gotten weaker. A formal closure is not required, something that has already been explained to you. You can keep babbling about how consensus is not a vote count, but you clearly do not have consensus here. If you did, somebody else might have supported your position. nableezy - 23:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, "babbling." Is that like the Tower of Babel? Thanks for keeping it civil. The RfC didn't "conclude" anything; you are in no position to determine what the consensus was, now that you're vigorously arguing one side. Any supposed "consensus" that relies on arguments that refer to reliably sourced accusations as "political mudslinging" (I won't name the editor who said this, but check the archives yourself) or implies that real-world proceedings have an effect on what gets covered in WP (other than reliable source coverage) is highly dubious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

lol, the day I take a civility lesson from you is the day I eat my hat. Again, your belief on what is or is not highly dubious is of nearly no importance here. We operate on consensus, and per WP:ONUS you need to show consensus for an addition. You very clearly do not have that. nableezy - 00:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, WP:REHASH. You didn't have consensus for this before, so what has changed that warrants its inclusion now? VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed this information:

While there, he wrote several articles in support of Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. Ellison graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1990.^[1][2]

This was a couple of articles he wrote while in college during the days Farrakhan was very popular with many black men who were searching for an identity. He has since denounced Farrakhan. To mention a couple of articles he wrote almost 30 years ago while in college is not the way to write an encyclopedic article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It was determined to be relevant by reliable sources, which is what we go by—the fact that you personally think a part of his background is justifiable or being unfairly scrutinized is utterly and totally irrelevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday I added factual information (based on reliable source) that he was involved in Nation of Islam and Million Man March. Someone deleted this saying it is out of chronological order and already covered elsewhere in the article. But it is covered much later and much further out of chronological order. Can we have it restored please ? BorisG (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

so who was the hindu that sali said these against, and what does it have to do with ellison?!

someone else follow up by saying ALL non-christians should be blocked from doing the invocation, not just that hindu? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)