Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a225fc8d79caa3ae

Jump to content

Talk:Keith Ellison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by The Four Deuces in topic Racist Comments

Racist Comments

[edit]

As two factual edits have both been removed, I’ll leave this in the talk section. Mr. Ellison’s controversial opinions and remarks should have equal access to readers on his page as his positive contributions. Mr. Ellison is cited on video calling a Supreme Court justice a house slave…. On video. There is no “political interpretation” to that. The Senate Judiciary committee condemned that comment with bipartisan support. The comment was only removed because FoxNews is listed as unreliable by Wikipedia. The “reliable” sources like MSNBC and NYT chose not to run that story. All this is fact. The closest thing to opinion I posted was the title of “racist comments” which is entirely justified when you look at what passed Wikipedia’s litmus test to define something as “racist” on other political figures’ pages. This would be even more justified as a bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee essentially defined Ellison’s comments as racist. Johnnytucf (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you understand what's happening when blacks call another black person an "Uncle Tom"? Think about that. It's no more racist than protesting racism is a racist act, a common accusation made by racists and white supremacists when their racism is pointed out.
Your heading and sources were all coming from a racist universe, and we don't allow that here.
Even the amendment and your unreliable Fox source say "racially charged", which isn't necessarily "racist" (which you use in your heading). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's the same as an American calling another American a Benedict Arnold. It doesn't mean the person making the comment is anti-American, just because Benedict Arnold was American.
Lack of coverage of a story means that it lacks weight for inclusion. What is important to an article is determined by what reliable sources find important.
Also, the term the Committee used was "racial," not "racist." TFD (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply