Talk:Jeff Sessions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial comments

I removed the phrase "[cautious toward]...foreign trade." in the Political Career section. The sentence implied that Republicans, who have been the only strong proponents of free trade, were generally "cautious toward trade." Furthermore, Mr. Sessions voted for CAFTA (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00209) earlier this year. Although he has a mixed bag with other measures, (yes to Singapore, no the Chile, 'cautious' seems like a perjorative term.

I noticed that the CQ profile in the links at the bottom of the page (http://www.cqpress.com/ls/pia/pdfs/107/aljr-2000.pdf) says that Sessions' federal judiciary nomination failed 9-9, whereas the Wikipedia article claims the vote was 10-8. The cited source (a TNR article) does agree with the 10-8 vote, but it's hosted off-site and I don't have access to TNR online. Someone should figure out what the vote actually was, or at least decide which source is more authoritative. --Dustingc 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hispanics

The survey about Sessions' Hispanic support in Alabama is a little ridiculous. If you check the actual sample numbers in the poll that was cited, the sample size for Hispanics was exactly nine people! That's not statistically significant, and it's not worth mentioning on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.235.192 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 July 2006

I'm agreeable to it being removed, but I'd like to see what others have to say. John Broughton 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's not even close to the most notable thing about his stance on illegal immigration. And it's true, the inclusion of the statistic would lead one to think that's a notable point. Sorta undue weight, in a sense. Most notable thing for Sessions in this issue is his increased visibility and esp. support among Republican voters (nationwide, not just in Alabama). I don't have time to research/write something about that in the near future or revise that section, but I'd agree with 66.168.235.192's point. I'll try to get to it later. --Beth C. 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since no one objected to its removal, it's gone. John Broughton 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Brief exchange with Chuck Grassley

Was this a significant event? It seems like nothing more than a procedural matter in the Senate, and Grassley seems to be the main actor. What's the point? Qqqqqq (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is still here, and it still doesn't seem notable to me. If anything, it should go in the article about Grassley; it really had very little to do with Sessions. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted "He is a prominent racist and bigot."

Deleted as propaganda/editorializing. quite probably true (in fact that would be my position on him as well) but, the argument is not developed, the argument is not supported, specifics are not cited. This is nothing but a personal view and does not belong here in this form.JTGILLICK (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm?

"Sessions opposes approval of the Uniting American Families Act. In June 2009, during testimony by a 42-year-old Filipino woman who was scheduled to be deported in April 2009 despite being the mother of two American children and having a relationship for 23 years with an American woman, Sessions was audibly heard relaying to one of his aides, "Enough with the histrionics" when the woman's 12-year-old son began crying during the testimony."

Am I reading that correctly? Was this really a same-sex relationship, or did someone vandalize the article? If it isn't vandalism, then the article really needs to specify which woman they are talking about when they refer to "{her} 12-year-old son", because right now it doesn't and it's ambiguous. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed this section a bit because the New Republic blog post (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/04/jeff-sessions-makes-children-cry.aspx) does not attribute the claim to anyone by name. Since there is no audio or video evidence of this comment, it should be made clear that this statement is an allegation. BTW, the son belongs to the 42-year-old Filipino woman, and it is a same-sex relationship. 4RunnerRebel

Sessions and racism

Source Racist Statement:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102

http://newspirates.com/?p=3460 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope Associated Press and Foxnews are reliable sources:

Associated Press cited:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sessions_vs_sotomayor

Foxnews cited:

http://www.fox2now.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-sessions-vs-sotomayor,0,336299.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Racist Argument was support by Foxnews and Associated Press: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press cited:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sessions_vs_sotomayor

Racist:

Foxnews:

http://www.fox2now.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-sessions-vs-sotomayor,0,336299.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Senator blocked by bias claims now raises them

AP – Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, questions Supreme Court …

Play Video Video:'Extremely Troubling'

FOX News Play Video Video:Sotomayor vows to use even hand in judging cases AP By LAURIE KELLMAN,

Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jul 14, 6:28 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican equating Sonia Sotomayor's supposed empathy with racial bias, was blocked from the federal bench himself two decades ago for making insensitive remarks about the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP.

The third-term Alabama senator, this week at least, is the face of a party without a clear leader. His role strikes some as hypocritical. But arguably, no one knows more intimately what a political minefield race has been for the GOP.

Nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the federal bench, Sessions, then a federal prosecutor, was attacked by liberals for "gross insensitivity" on matters of race. Notably, he is reported to have joked that the KKK — a violent white supremacist group during much of its history — wouldn't be so bad but for their use of marijuana. The NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, he allegedly said, were communist-inspired and tried to force civil rights down people's throats.

Sessions' nomination never made it to the Senate floor. His home-state senator, the late Howell Heflin, voted against him.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have removed a lengthy section of the article that was quoted in full, above, because of copyright concerns, and because, more importantly, it's about Sessions today, and about Sessions and Sotomayor, not about Sessions' past history of (let's say, for the moment, alledged) racism.

More to the point - I removed the above text from the middle of an older discussion (2006), above, because Wikipedia is not a debating society. The purpose of article talk pages is to improve articles. Without looking, I assume that the article has changed considerably in the past three years. Anything posted on this page, today, needs to be about problems with the article today. And the best way to improve the article is to actually suggest changes to it - specific wording that should be added, deleted, or changed.

So, what's wrong with the article, and how should it be improved? (And yes, I agree that the AP and Foxnews are generally reliable sources; sometimes they make mistakes, but the presumption should be that when they say that something happened, it in fact did, and that it was newsworthy.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the term "alleged" used in reference to Session's earlier statements. These are direct quotations, and Sessions has _never_ contested that he made these statments. He only argued that he a) said these comments in jest and b) they were taken out of context. As such, there is not need for the term "alleged," as it is flat out incorrect. User anonymous and I like it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.166.11 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Sessions denied the both the specific allegations, and the more general accusations of racism. See for example http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/you-cant-dwell-on-those-things-sen-jeff-sessions-r-alarecently-told-the-examiners-byron-york-if-i-had-be.html According to ABC News, "in testimony, Sessions pushed back against the charges and denied any racial animus." Also, the word "alleged" is used because it is the right word. If I say you did something, I am alleging it. If you are later proven to have done something, that qualifier can be removed, but that was not the case here. Yes, they are direct quotations, but not direct quotations from Sessions himself. They are quotations from other individuals, with no written or audio or any other kind of proof. 4RunnerRebel (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing stuff

Wikipedia has norms for removing text that cannot be verified. The norm is NOT to simply delete text because "no source was cited". If that were the criteria, at least half of what is wikipedia should be removed, even though most of that WAS accurate. It's an unfortunate truth that a lot of contributions to wikipedia were unsourced. That doesn't make them wrong.

There are at least three acceptable alternatives: (1) do a google or other search, and state in the edit summary that a search failed to find support; also check any sources for the article and say that they also did not support the text; (2) post a comment on the talk/discussion page that you propose to remove the text, and what (if anything) you've done to try to verify it; or (3) use the "citation needed" template to mark it as needing further work.

Doing (1) gives people confidence that someone is not trying to make an article POVish by deleting selective stuff; (2) gives a lot more notice to others that something may be removed; and (3) is probably best because it lets readers decide if they believe (apparently) unsourced info, while suggesting to others who want to improve the article that they could help by finding a source. John Broughton 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sessions' opponents accused him of "gross insensitivity” on racial issues." Who said this? It's got quotes, but NO SOURCE. I didn't add the line in the first place, so IMHO it's up to the person who added the line to find the source. You can't possibly believe that line isn't just a POV injection into the page, can you? I'm a constituent of Sessions, and I don't hear about "gross insensitivity on racial issues." I don't add that, though, because that's just first-person knowledge (per Wikipedia rules). Sounds to me like the "gross insensitivity" is first-person knowledge, if anything. Re the TNR link, FINE. I'll be happy to add links extolling the virtues of Senator Sessions, if that is going to be the standard. I won't play reversion wars, but this is ridiculous. (sigh) --Beth C. 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, what's the point in the TNR article being there? "The Senator Worse than Lott?" Come ON, if that's not a "reliable source" without an agenda...??? What's the purpose in it being there, except to point out to the reader that some guy at TNR thinks he's "worse than Lott?" I'm sure someone at NRO or somewhere has written what a f'n great guy he is, and I'd be willing to bet that adding it would set off alarm bells all over Wikipedia. Sorry, I am extremely frustrated here and this one little article--one that unlike so many others does not have a mile-long heated discussion page--rubs me the wrong way. It's likely to go unnoticed and unchallenged otherwise, and someone's got to make it fair. Sticking in an link like that doesn't add to the utility of the article any more than a link to cheerleading for Sessions. I call foul, and if my objection is against Wikipedia rules, then as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia rules are flawed. --Beth C. 09:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search on "gross insensitivity" and "Jeff Sessions"; the second result was from CQ, already listed in this article. I just added the link (somewhat redundantly) so that this won't come up again. (And, again, the larger issue isn't whether something should be removed or not, it's the PROCESS that is used to remove it.)

No, it is NOT POV to cite the views of opponents of an individual, if those opponents are important (as was the case here, where Sessions' nomination was rejected). It WOULD be POV (unacceptable) if the article said "Sessions was rejected because of his gross insensitivity to racial issues". But it didn't.

I'm sorry that the title of a source bothers you. The best way to deal with that, as you noted, is to add other sources for the article that are appropriate (e.g., newspaper articles saying that Sessions is doing a great job), and let the reader decide what to believe. Wikipeda rules do NOT specify that only unbiased/neutral sources will be used or cited, but rather only that FACTS and objective information from those sources be used in articles. John Broughton 12:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going from the guidelines here. "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source." CAUTION, presumably because if it is factual there will be non-partisan sources as well. Also here: "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident." Now I'm fully aware that this guideline is not a strict rule, and it's routinely ignored in Wikipedia, but it doesn't make it right. Surely you understand why someone who disagrees with the author's view would object? Why inject partisanship into the article? Is it that important to you? It's not the title, it's the title and the content and the one-sided position of the publication and the writer. I fail to see how it adds to the overall picture of Senator Sessions, when there is plenty of other material in the (Wiki) article to make that point. Frankly, the Sessions (wiki) article does NOT deal with the subject in a "fair and balanced" manner (I'm sure the phrase I used will be sneered at; nevertheless, I expect "fair and balanced"). And considering the fact that Sessions is a "living person," I'll add this to my objection as well. "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." --Beth C. 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your stated presumption that there will (usually? always?) be non-partisan sources as well as partisan ones, and so, by implication, partisan sources should rarely if ever be used.

I'm glad you're looking at wikipedia policies. One problem is that you're still talking in generalities and personal interpretations - how exactly does one measure fair and balanced? disproportionate amount of space? Another problem is that you cite policy on the amount of space given to "critics". But you misread the wikipedia policy. It's about including critic's words (for example, "proponents of Intelligent Design are creationists in disguise"), NOT to citing factual matters (as in the prosecution by Sessions of three civil rights workers - that paragraph isn't "criticism", it's a statement of what happened; if it is too negative because it omits certain facts, then those should be added for balance). The words/views/opinions of critics of ID can be cited because those critics are not a tiny minority, while someone who disputes (say) the theory of gravity shouldn't be quoted at all. Nor should someone who says (for example) that Sessions is a reincarnation of a southern plantation owner.

So far, to get to specifics, you've (a) objected to a quotation from a CQ Press source, a quotation that is absolutely necessary to understand an important incident in Sessions life, and (b) proposed to delete the external link to a lengthy article that has lots of facts, but is clearly anti-Sessions. Do you not understand what the purpose of external sources is? They offer readers more information than can possibly be included in wikipedia articles, except if there were massive copyright violations. A reader who wants only "unbiased" sources is pretty naive - an official Senate biography is going to skip over inconvient facts like dropping out of college or being divorced or business failures, so even that is not fully unbiased.

If you have other specific objections to specific wording in the article, this would be a great place to discuss them. And if you have material you want to ADD to the article, please have at it. John Broughton 12:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(Removing indent) My thought is that where non-partisan sources exist, they should be used in favor of partisan ones. I have no problem with the CQ inclusion whatsoever; if the link was there before, I apparently didn't see it because it wasn't with the quote, I guess (?). I never questioned the statement about the prosecution by Sessions of three civil rights workers. What I take issue with is the "worse than Lott" business. YES, Sessions was criticized, and that's in the CQ source, and again, I don't take issue with that. I certainly don't expect his prosecutorial record to be erased, either! I think you may be assuming that I'm trying to "sanitize" the article or make it a campaign brochure, but I assure you I am not. I suppose the article is, if anything, far from complete, in that it's lacking any balance. I frankly haven't had time yet to add to it, so I think that if it's not flagged NPOV, it should be annotated some other way. (I'm not familiar yet with "incomplete" flagging, if such a thing exists.)

I may be speaking in "generalities," but if so, I submit that any other reader would look at it in a general way as well. Wikipedia isn't for scholars, it's for people wanting general information. The article in any encyclopedia should give the readers an informed view, without skewing their view one way or another. Obviously people who follow political issues will note a lack of balance, but those who don't will get other impressions. For example, there are articles on certain subjects about which you or I know almost nothing, right? If I read it, I expect it to be authoritative, correct, and free of bias. And not devoid of stating the controversies, but with both sides of the controversies.

But "worse than Lott?" I can't find anything that directly contradicts that particular article, and from what I can see, it's purely opinion. I'm not a TNR subscriber, and it's subscriber-only content after the first paragraph--and that paragraph is an anti-Lott rant; it doesn't even address Sessions except in the title, "worse than Lott"--who is portrayed basically as "the reincarnation of a plantation owner" (your words, not the article's). Should I have to hunt down something that says "no he's not a racist?" Maybe nobody has reason to even say such a thing--not because they'd agree with the TNR/Sarah Wildman premise of his being a racist, but because it simply isn't considered a valid argument. Just a quick scan on the internet shows some left-wing bloggers who used the TNR article as a "source" to "prove" that Sessions is a rabid racist. That tells me the article is clearly an attack piece, and doesn't add anything but venom to that which was already stated in the CQ piece. You know what I found countering it? Freepers. Obviously not source material. It's not even referenced by anyone all that much. So why is THAT considered an important outside link? And should one be expected to read everything written about Sessions to see if anyone happened to mention something on his behalf in that regard?

Do you see where I'm coming from? --Beth C. 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the title of the TNR article. I think it would have been more defensible if the title had ended with a question mark.

I've changed the link to point to full version of that article (you deleted this link, by the way). As you can see, the TNR article does list a lot of facts to make its case; whether you agree or not with the conclusion implicit in the title, the article IS useful. And the source IS considered reliable under wikipedia criteria. Moveover, there is no wikipedia policy that forbids citing a source if the article does not include other sources that balance it out. (Wikipedia policy is focused on the content of wikipedia articles - and, in this case, there are NO opinion statements from the TNR article in the Sessions wikipedia article, as far as I can tell.)

I also understand your frustration with what you see as an article where much of the information comes from sources unfriendly to Sessions. All I can say is that wikipedia articles are an accumulation of edits. The reality is that when editors are unpaid and essentially unidentifiable, many of them are motivated by other than a desire to have completely fair and balanced articles. What is a good wikipedia article as of July 2006 probably started out as a short, unbalanced, and quite possibly biased piece. The best way to deal with the situation is (a) not to assume that wikipedia articles are unbiased, and (b) to improve articles by adding information, tinkering with language so that it is more neutral, removing trivia, adding sources. In short, the solution is to get into the specifics. John Broughton 18:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of order: "not to assume that wikipedia articles are unbiased" - THAT is why I say it does not represent a neutral point of view. It doesn't. You may consider it a "good article," but I don't. You and the user "Artificial Intelligence" have both attacked me personally as having an "agenda," when I have used the NPOV tag or edited articles. Don't try wikilawyering me; I don't have the time to spend all day editing all the articles here when I see bias, but I will point out that bias as it exists in this article and the other one in which we have a very stark difference of opinion. Obviously someone needs to come in and resolve it, because 1) I don't have time, as I said, and 2) anything I do will be attacked by you or your "Artificial Intelligence" ally as being agenda-driven. For now, I am tagging this article because it DOES need more work to make it NPOV.

I think people who "have an agenda" can do perfectly good things in wikipedia if they follow the rules, and are reasonable. I certainly have biases; I do my best to overcome them when editing.

I didn't say that this article is a good one, and I apologize for the misunderstanding: I said that a good article (pick one, any one) probably started out as a poor article, and improved over time by ADDITIONS.

There is no higher authority in wikipedia that is going to swoop in and fix what you consider to be bias. There are only folks like you and me who can discuss specific wording that should be changed to improve clarity, and add to the article to improve them. Sorry.

You seem outraged that the article is - in your eyes - so biased, and you seem to think that this should be obvious to almost everyone else, from which it follows that those who don't agree it's biased are biased themselves. I can't argue with that logic; all I can say is that you're never going to get changes that you want to articles by posting general charges of bias and other complaints on wikipedia talk pages. The wikipedia process is to do small things (edits), and only when editors can't agree on those small things, where both parties think the matter is important, are various processes available to resolve the situation. John Broughton 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove some of Neutrality's additions to the federal judgeship part. Some of the additions are valuable -- particularly some of the direct quotes from Figures. Also helpful is the clarification about the 10-8 vote vs. the 9-9 vote. However, in my view, this section is now weighted way too heavily with respect to the rest of the article. If we really want this much detail, maybe make a separate article for this section? Given that the nomination was one event in Sessions' political career -- granted, a significant event, but still just one -- I think this section is should be about the same length and level of detail as the rest of the entry. I mean, for that matter, we could have 6-8 paragraphs of witness and stakeholder testimony for a) Sotomayor, b) immigration, c) the bank bailout, etc... What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.210.87 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

I totally disagree that Sessions drew "considerable controversy" about his remarks to John Kyl after Katrina. One short article in Time magazine is NOT a controversy. I changed "considerable" to "minor," but really that part hardly qualifies as controversy at all. I live in the Katrina-affected part of Alabama, and never heard a word about it from any other news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.191.158 (talk • contribs)

I've removed that sentence, and done some other cleanup to make the section more neutral in language. John Broughton 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The New Republic article about "Jeff Sessions makes children cry" cites an unnamed source, and does not link to any audio or video, but TNR itself is considered reliable (enough) for Wikipedia standards. A recent editor had questioned why that section was included at all. 4RunnerRebel (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I get money there

What exactly does Senator Sessions mean by that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9y4tqq3idk

I think (and hope) that it is intended to be a repeat of this:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/political_skinny_jeff_sessions_1.html In an e-mail, Sessions spokesman Stephen Boyd called Thompson's assertions "beyond ridiculous," adding that Thompson has acknowledged that the Lexington Institute receives funding from Boeing.

Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sessions reverses himself on no taxes pledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Sessions&oldid=622067806&diff=prev

If he had not previously ruled out increasing taxes then it would be non-notable. Hcobb (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob Zellner

This edit makes a statement regarding Sessions involvement with someone name Bob Zellner. It is sourced to a Youtube video of someone that we're told is Bob Zellner reading from his book. Generally speaking Youtube is not a WP:reliable source. In this case, we have no verification that the person who appears in the video is actually Bob Zellner or that he's actually reading from "The Wrong Side of Murder Creek", other than the metadata associated with the video on Youtube. So the video itself is definitely not WP:reliable. Regardless, the video does NOT even mention Sessions. Consequently, I'm reverting the edit.CFredkin (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Trump pick for attorney general

A section needs to be added. I would think this is a defining moment of where the country is regarding bigotry and every detail should be included. Historians will study this for decades,--Wikipietime (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

For now all we need is the fact that Trump has said he will nominate him. We could add a few reaction comments, but enough for a section IMO, unless his nomination becomes a major news story. A section will probably be created when his nomination actually comes before the senate. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Biased Introduction

Biased introduction describing Sessions' time in the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4680:2B20:C968:4A84:6C18:F8C8 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not helpful. Please describe what you think the article SHOULD say and we can discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Military service

Article says Sessions "[achieved] the rank of captain", but neglects to state his rank at the time of his commission. Given that he was a lawyer by that time, I assume he was a Direct commission officer. Presumably, that means he started out at captain and received no promotion in rank in his four years in the reserves. With this in mind, "achieved" is a stretch at best, and an exaggeration at worst.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding info about his being US attorney and prosecuting KKK

This story is making the rounds, and should probably be added to the section on him being US Attorney. "While U.S. Attorney in Alabama, Sessions prosecuted members of the Ku Klux Klan who killed Michael Donald, a young black man, and hung his body from a tree in 1981." [1] -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions did not prosecute the case, so this needs to be removed. See this New York Times story from 1984. He was apparently the State's Attorney General during a two-year period before Hays was executed; that is not a prosecutorial role for the case, however. When Hays was executed, Sessions was already in the Senate. Andwhatnot (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andwhatnot: The source linked to by Fuzheado says that "While U.S. Attorney in Alabama, Sessions prosecuted members of the Ku Klux Klan who killed Michael Donald, a young black man, and hung his body from a tree in 1981." The source that you linked to does not directly contradict the story. Why are you repeatedly removing the relevant sourced content? Thanks, Tony Tan · talk 18:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the Weekly Standard article that says:

"And he also prosecuted Klansman Henry Francis Hays, son of Alabama Klan leader Bennie Hays, for abducting and killing Michael Donald, a black teenager selected at random. Sessions insisted on the death penalty for Hays. When he was later elected the state Attorney General, Sessions followed through and made sure Hays was executed. The successful prosecution of Hays also led to a $7 million civil judgment against the Klan, effectively breaking the back of the KKK in Alabama."
— The Weekly Standard

Is the Weekly Standard rewriting history? I'm not sure, but I think we need to see a few more sources to sort this out.- MrX 18:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions was a US Attorney (federal prosecutor) at the time. The case was tried by a different government entirely: the state government (Alabama), via a district attorney (the one referenced in the New York Times article). It's not possible that Sessions or his office could have prosecuted it. A US Attorney cannot prosecute a criminal action in state court. Sessions's office did investigate the case, probably as a civil rights violation--that's where some of the allegations about Sessions's alleged racist comments come from, in fact--but it did not prosecute the criminal homicide. The Weekly Standard is simply being sloppy. Andwhatnot (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sloppy, or partisan perhaps. The National Review says he led the prosecution.- MrX 18:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the case you linked to is the appeal of a federal habeas corpus case. It is a collateral challenge by the defendant, after conviction and sentencing, to the legality of the state court judgment on the grounds that it was procured in violation of the federal constitution. Sessions was the Alabama Attorney General at that time, which defended the case in federal court. That is not a prosecution, however. That is defense of a habeas corpus case. The state of Alabama was the defendant in the action, and at that time (1996), Sessions had moved on from the US Attorney's office to the Alabama Attorney General's office, whose job it was to defend all habeas corpus cases brought against the state in federal court by state court prisoners. Andwhatnot (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I screwed that up. I didn't mean to post the findlaw link, although it is somewhat relevant. Here is the National Review article: [2].- MrX 19:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There is an entire book about this case; the lynching by laurence leamer, but i can't view any of it on google books. does anyone have access? NPalgan2 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the book on Amazon. Sessions gets 3 brief mentions - tom figures considered him a closet racist, briefly mentions him working on the case with figures and kowalski, and then a mention that he later became senator. The only sources that consider his participation in the donald case notable are the distinctly partisan Weekly Standard and NR. Until we can find NPOV sources that say his involvement was significant, his very tangential involvement doesnt warrant a mention. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard article was inaccurate. someone located original press clippings. https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/800518508446699522 NPalgan2 (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC) see here. dont think it warranrts a mention. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1983/06/17/page/13/article/2-klansmen-charged-in-blacks-death NPalgan2 (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Attorney General designate

Please stop changing the office to attorney general. He is a nominee, no more, and until then he is a U.S. Senator. Please stop changing from senator to AG, this is getting disruptive, and it's why I semi-protected the article. Infoboxes aren't meant to provide nuanced statements. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I had changed the wording to nominee rather than designate, but precedent from Obama's nominees should provide the necessary guidance for how to handle this, and I think you are on the wrong side. Calibrador (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

He's still a U.S. Senator - why do you think that isn't important? The Holder precedent doesn't apply in such a case. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

How about the Hillary Clinton precedent? Seems to me you are very confused. Calibrador (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion. The article should not speculate about possible future offices.- MrX 03:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is replacement of "senator" with "attorney general." Calibrador's version with the additional AG designate section should be fine, the previous edits were not. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You realize it says he is Senator twice now? Because no one was replacing his position as Senator? Calibrador (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. He is currently a senator. If he becomes AG, we can add it at that time.- MrX 03:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

So we are basing things on your personal opinion now, rather than established precedence for nominees to a cabinet position? Calibrador (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Established precedents are guidelines, and I'm not aware of any that say we can add speculative information to infoboxes. The President-elect has announced Sessions as his choice for AG, but as recent history shows, he frequently changes his mind, his party, and his story. There is also a real possibility that Sessions could fail to obtain Senate confirmation based on his own history.[3][4][5]. WP:CRYSTAL suggests a cautious approach. This is not a breaking news website. - MrX 12:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Stating someone is a nominee isn't crystal balling anything. It's basically saying the same thing as the prose accompanying it in the lead and main article. Calibrador (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to describe him has Trump's nominee in the body of the article. There is no such office as nominee, so it doesn't belong on the officeholder infobox.- MrX 14:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree. Calibrador (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to start an RfC here, at WT:MOSIBOX or at WP:VP if you feel that strongly about it.- MrX 16:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a tricky situation. He's not a AG-designate, because designate is for officials that don't need Senate confirmation. Yet, he's not AG-nominee until Trump tenders the name to the Senate. Trump can't tender the name until he becomes US President. The most likely thing to do? put AG-nominee, as it's a position that needs Senate confirmation or don't put up anything at all. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Even if there was such an office, he's not the nominee yet. Trump can't nominate anyone until he's in office. Right now, it's just a plan to nominate him. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Name origin?

Whenever Sen. Sessions comes up I hear a lot of discussion about whether or not his middle name "Beauregard" comes from--and before you start with it, I know, he's Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and they're carrying on a family name--whether or not it comes from noted Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard. Does anyone know? If so, does it merit mention in the article? The associations could be... let's just say the association could be indelicate, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.197.100 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Seems trivial and not worth putting into the article. He had no control over the name his parents picked, regardless of where it comes from originally. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Partly I'm just curious about whether or not it actually does come from the general. I haven't been able to find something definitive one way or another.59.115.118.91 (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

His senatorial office probably gets that question a lot. Try emailing them. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a great idea, NPalgan2, if I get an answer I'll make another note here.220.136.73.35 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you're having difficulty finding the answer, that's a good indicator that reliable sources haven't found it relevant either. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Using The Intercept as the sole source for this claim is dubious. Aside from the fact that they're playing it very biased (calling him a racist in the headline), the Intercept has it's own recent issues with truthfulness as it pertains to race issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A user has added this material to the article, and then they re-added it after Niteshift reverted it. I can't remove it right now due to the 1RR restriction, and neither can Niteshift. I will go to the user's talk page and explain the DS limits on restoring contentious material, and point them to this discussion. In the meantime, it would be good if someone else would remove it per this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Y Marquardtika (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I explained on their talk page; I hope they see it in time and don't re-add it. I beliee they are operating in good faith and I don't want them to get into trouble over the DS. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder why everyone focuses on the "Beauregard" middle name as having Confederate implications - when it seems equally likely that the "Jefferson" in his grandfather's name came from Jefferson Davis. In either case the names were picked by his great-grandparents as names for his grandfather, probably 100 years or more ago; I can't see any way that their choice reflects on him. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that it doesn't seem relevant. If it were relevant enough (or an interesting story), I'm sure it would be easier to find less POV sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"United States Attorney General"

It is not necessary that the infobar should contain Sessions as the nominee for United States Attorney General. Until he is confirmed by the Senate and Trump's Cabinet is officially installed on 20 January 2017, the infobar should be reverted to denote Sessions' highest political office as being United States Senator for the time being. Frevangelion (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above about the infobar. Additionally it says underneath, "Taking Office TBD", which implies that it's a sure thing. Additionally some of the other language pages had been changed and stated that he took office on January 20th. Please check these if you can speak other languages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E9C:BC30:C585:8029:5EC9:A723 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Video

User:Jasonanaggie This video shouldn't be in these 3 articlesif it is not mentioned in the text of the relevant article. The Yates/Sessions exchange shouldn't be in the text unless it's supported by a WP:RS, which I can't find. RSs determine notability. Please read WP:PRIMARY. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't "Primary Research", it is the video of a confirmation hearing under oath. There is nothing misleading here. It would be of interest to anyone reading this article. It is not often that you get a video that includes 3 separate issues involved in it. Here the questioner is the person who potentially will be taking the position that the one being questioned is answering a direct question about why she was fired. It could not be clearer.Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If it is important to Jeff Sessions, reliable sources will cover this video. Then you can add a description of it, citing the RSs, to the text of the article and maybe the video itself if it's WP:DUE. But you don't get to decide that this video is important to the Jeff Sessions article out of the thousands of hours that Jeff Sessions has been on C-SPAN. This is wikipedia policy 101 you've been around here for over a decade. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the video belongs, either. There are many CSPAN videos of Sessions, and I see no reason to include this one video over others. Marquardtika (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation of Jeff Sessions as AG.

Given the confirmation of Mr. Sessions as the Attorney General, please update the article to note that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2113 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that he is confirmed as AG, is he still a senator? Does he immediately cease to be a senator or does he have to formally resign? It may be necessary for the info bar and lede to be updated to reflect that he is no longer a Senator.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

He can not take office as Attorney General until he officially announces his resignation from the Senate. For example, John Kerry was confirmed as Secretary of State on January 29, but didn't take up the post until he resigned as Senator on February 1.Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 00:45, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

We're having the same problems at United States Attorney General & Dana Boente articles. Less informed editors are updating articles too early. This has been a continuing problem for all the cabinet nominees. Too many editors believe that confirmation automatically makes the nominee into the appointed officer holder. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think technically--despite the news coverage that says he has been confirmed--the official vote to confirm him has not yet taken place. The last vote was cloture to end debate on the nomination [6] (compare this with Betsy DeVos who had a separate vote after cloture for confirmation and a failed motion to reconsider [7]). However, I think the news media probably sees it as a fait accompli and the final vote might take place today. Any thoughts on being more accurate in covering these technical details? I'm inclined to just follow what the media is doing as our article does. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

Request more reliable sources than false news sites such as salon and huffington post for facts and to use more historical facts on Jeff's history as US Attorney, not just a 2 sentence 'he's a racist' moniker. thank you. 73.225.8.97 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - Please specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 23:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Schools

"As Attorney-General, Sessions led the state's defense of a schools funding model ultimately found unconstitutional because of disparities between rich, mostly white, and poor, mostly black, schools. According to ProPublica, Sessions as state attorney general fought the effort to fund poor black school districts as fairly as wealthy white schools "passionately"."

The second sentence simply repeats the first sentence, except that it uses the npov language "fairly" and quotes propublica saying that sessions fought the lawsuit "passionately". If propublica's pov is so important, at least it should be stated in the npov way i had before self-reverting. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References

I removed "passionately" as it seemed an unneeded adjective. Are there other changes you'd like to make to this content? Marquardtika (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the second (Pro Publica) sentence entirely, leaving the reference and putting "passionately" into the one remaining sentence. I see that Marquardtika has now removed "passionately" (almost simultaneously, we almost edit-conflicted) and that is OK with me. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Marquardtika. I think that the single sentence mention is due weight at the moment. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Can I make an observation? His job was to defend it. We should be careful about implying that he personally supported it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We could add a qualifier such as "in his capacity as Alabama Attorney General..." Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously it was his job, but Attorneys General have some leeway over issues like whether to appeal in particular contexts, etc, and sometimes choose their battles with an eye to future campaigns for governor, senator and so on. The thing is, there isn't much RS stuff on this: a NYT opinion piece, a short mention on AL.com, and the propublica piece. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we can leave it as it is. He defended the law ("passionately" according to one source) and that was his job. We commonly include the noteworthy things that people did during their tenure in public office. This seems to be the only thing he did as state attorney general that got much coverage, so it is proper to include it here. Without commentary, without implication one way or the other how he felt about it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd lean towards the "in his capacity" suggestion. Would "vigorously" be an acceptable substitute for "passionately"? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"Gang of Eight"

In seeing this edit adding Gang of Eight to the article, I immediately had to question whether a title of our article Gang of Eight meets are standards forWP:NPOV language. The term "gang" is no doubt an ad hominem to attack to group's work together placed on them by those who had the opposite views. The members for good reason object [8][9]. I did look up the term and it does appear in prominent news articles such as this New Yorker article. However, I am troubled that we are participating in the advancement of the ad hominem. Any thoughts on how to address this non WP:NPOV term?

Perhaps we could have, "Sessions opposed the work of a bipartisan group of 8 senators"? At a minimum the term should be put in quotes as done here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Gang of 8 is a very widely used term, not a term of derision used by opponents.See the disambig page too Gang_of_Eight. See Gang_of_14. See https://www.google.com/#q=gang+of+8+site:nytimes.com many uses by the NYT which passionately supported the bill. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"opponent of illegal immigration"

The article uses this phrase twice to describe his positions. It seems to me to be something of a throw-away phrase. Is there anybody who is a proponent of illegal immigration? I gather that the intent is to talk about his support for more measures to curb illegal immigration. Am I missing something? Any ideas on better phrasing?[[PPX]] (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the phrasing is that bad, but it could perhaps be replaced with something like "he favors strict enforcement of existing immigration laws." Marquardtika (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait...now we have was a "congressional proponent of reducing legal immigration." Is that sourced? That's different than being an opponent of illegal immigration. Does he favor reducing the number of legal immigrants as well? Marquardtika (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It was a part of the article before this edit, and it continues to be there after the revert. It appears to be sourced to this and this.

I was not trying to open up that can of worms, but we certainly can! [[PPX]] (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Homophobia?

It seems pertinent to mention homophobia, given Sessions' political standpoint of homophobia has been an obvious theme throughout his political career. Given he is a politician in what is generally considered a first world democracy, his anachronistic ideology is unusual, consequential, and therefore certainly relevant information on his Wikipedia article.

This is not intended to be an attack, Sessions' personal platform is indisputablly one of proud homophobia, and it is more than an interesting detail given its relevance to the global gay rights movement.

Xto 999 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you show us some Reliable Sources to support this? If it hasn't been discussed by multiple Reliable Sources we can't use it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN The book Hostile Climate: A state-by-state report on Anti-gay activity (1997) - https://www.google.bg/search?biw=1280&bih=918&tbm=bks&q=Hostile+climate+Jeff+Sessions+a+separate+case&oq=Hostile+climate+Jeff+Sessions+a+separate+case&gs_l=serp.3...9228.11348.0.11434.15.15.0.0.0.0.159.1204.10j3.13.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..2.1.119...30i10k1.hU1bUysfr7I Radiohist (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a book by People for the American Way, whose POV agenda is openly revealed by its title. Clicking on your link shows two partial sentences - nothing we can base an item on. We need sources to show this is actually a prominent public issue. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is another except from the book Alabama Getaway: The Political Imaginary and the Heart of Dixie - https://books.google.bg/books?id=iWA0MhRinKsC&pg=PA36&dq=Jeff+session+homosexuality&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz_cXjxYPSAhXsF5oKHR0tAwgQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=Jeff%20session%20homosexuality&f=false

I quote: "In 1995 Alabama attorney general Jeff Sessions, soon to become the state's junior senator, went out of his way to sign on as a friend of the court in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that sought to strike down Colorado municipalities' anti-homosexual discrimination ordinances."Radiohist (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And why is this not mentioned in the article - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/930/1492/1963744/Radiohist (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Radiohist: I have no objection to your adding something from both sources you cited in response to the topic at hand, but make sure to use the citation template to make a proper references (if you need help with that, please let me know). I do not understand MelanieN's claim that the first source is "biased" based on the title. What sources are not biased? I would like to see a citation to policy for the claim that source should be rejected. Radiohist: It would be acceptable to cite to the case, but only if you also include the secondary source that refers to that case. There seems to be WP:consensus that something regarding alleged homophobia be added to the article. Radiohist, you have my blessing to go ahead and make a WP:BOLD edit and see if it sticks. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, David Tornheim for your words of encouragement. I will try to add tomorrow or the next day. This whole Trump thing has more or less affected the neutrality of Wikipedia, unfortunately.Radiohist (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To me, mentions in a couple of special-purpose books are not adequate sourcing for an accusation like this. The books don't reveal this to have been a noteworthy issue outside of a special-interest prism, and there has been little to no coverage of this issue in the mainstream press that I could find. But here is one such mention you could use: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/kfile-jeff-sessions-lgbt-conference/index.html --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me ask: where in the article would you put this, and what would you say? I assume you are not going to say "proud homophobia"! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry MelanieN, but your stance is completely baseless, especially since you chose to ignore - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/930/1492/1963744/ May I add that our policy is moving towards a very dangerous path if we begin to ignore published books that have been considered primary sources for 15 years. If this is your personal opinion, then that is a horse of a different color.Radiohist (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, Here is some more proof that Session is against LGBTQ+ rights https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/devos-sessions-transgender-students-rights.html?_r=0 Radiohist (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

We already have a full paragraph, under "Social issues", about the fact that he opposes many aspects of LGBTQ rights. We could add a sentence about this latest gender-bathroom controversy. That does NOT mean we can call him "homophobic". That would be imposing a value judgment that is not made by, for example, the NYT article you cite. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• His job, as the attorney general of the state, was to represent the state's position. That doesn't always mean he personally holds an identical opinion. Additionally, doing his job doesn't make him a homophobe. Of course, opposing gay marriage or transgender bathroom use doesn't necessarily make you a homophobe either, unless of course you exhibit the fear associate with a phobia. In other words, merely having a different viewpoint isn't homophobia and trying to use a pejorative term like that is improper, even if some random source uses it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Under "Personal Details" someone added "Political party - TrumpRussia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.135.241 (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not I, but the revision edit made it look that way. I added the info on his contacts with Russian officials.Casprings (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King Quotes

I've added some Coretta Scott King quotes in multiple sections in the article (both his federal appointment and attorney general hearing). If you don't think they belong in both, feel free to discuss it here, but they were critical in both instances and take up small page space. Nick.aus96 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the quotes you added due to WP:UNDUE. We already note King's opposition and include a critical quote for her. I don't see a compelling reason to excerpt multiple quotes in two separate places in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I support the removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

They were arguably the most contentious part of his appointment hearing, and I don't believe that they affect the neutral point of view.Nick.aus96 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree King's opposition was notable, and that's why we've included a summary of it in the article. But there's no reason to include multiple extended quotations of King's. A summary gets the point across just fine. Marquardtika (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Exactly. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

New Editor

Regarding this edit that has an edit summary "Sessions testimony to Franken is displayed as OUT-OF-CONTEXT and INCOMPLETE. My Students WILL NOT USE WIKI as a Reference, any more.": I gave some advice to the new editor Behold Eck on his/her talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional info for Russian Controversy

Currently the Russian Controversy section does not even mention the response from the White House, Jeff Sessions, or even Russians. This should probably be rectified soon!

Texts that could be included in some way:

RUSSIAN EMBASSY IN D.C. RESPONSE:

"The embassy doesn't comment on numerous contacts with local partners, which occur on a daily basis in line with diplomatic practice" - Russian embassy spokesman Nikolai Lakhonin

Sources:

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/551945

https://ria.ru/world/20170302/1489088824.html

http://news.trust.org/item/20170302102501-lvo20

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sessions-met-russian-ambassador-didn-t-mislead-senate-spokeswoman-n727966

JEFF SESSIONS STATEMENTS:

"I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false." - Jeff Sessions

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meetings/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/sessions-russian-ambassador-spoke-twice-during-presidential-campaign.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sessions-met-russian-ambassador-didn-t-mislead-senate-spokeswoman-n727966

JEFF SESSION SPOKESMAN STATEMENTS:

"There was absolutely nothing misleading about [Sessions'] answer [to Franken]. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign--not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee." - Sarah Isgur Flores

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/sessions-russian-ambassador-spoke-twice-during-presidential-campaign.html

"OFFICIAL FAMILIAR WITH SESSION'S INTERACTIONS":

"An official familiar with Sessions' interactions provided NBC News with a list of what was described as all of the then-senator's known visits with foreign ambassadors last year. The list includes the Sept. 8 meeting with Kislyak.

The official told NBC News that Sessions came in contact with Kislyak a second time at a public event organized in July by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, where he spoke informally with a small group of ambassadors, including Kislyak.

The official said Sessions often met with ambassadors, discussing bilateral relations and issues, both positive or negative. Ambassadors would often make "superficial comments" about election-related news, the official said. But it was not the substance of their discussions, the official said."

sources:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uber-driver-fawzi-kamel-explains-why-he-argued-firm-s-n727496

Hopefully someone can add much of this to the article, as it is is currently severely lacking.75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is me, I had to figure out how to log inGunnar123abc (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" is what is said in source

This edit is causing problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Sessions&oldid=768216772 The source states "alleged" but this has been removed by that editor. A sad irony because if you read the summery of the next edit by this editor. Clearly is POV pushingGunnar123abc (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There should be some reference to Russian response somewhere regarding the RUSSIAN controversy

Ok, well, the extra-ordinary allegation that the ambassador is a spy from CNN had its response from the Russians largely removed. So once again the article is without any reference to one of the main participants in this controversy.

IF the response by the Russian Press Secretary is UNDUE, then what should be added to give some context to the Russian response?Gunnar123abc (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably argue against the use of blockquotes used within the section at the moment, it reads somewhat poorly, and Wikipedia MoS preference usually directs more towards use of prose. Can you link the changes or news sources you would like to re-add or expand upon your thoughts on this? Shaded0 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ambassador Kislyak "top spy" should probably be removed

BLP:GOSSIP states that "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." It is also a crime to be a spy in the United States, so that would also bring up BLP:CRIME. I don't believe the anonymous source from CNN is good enough to accuse officials of being head of spy rings. If there is ever any reliable evidence of Kislyak of being a spy, then it should be included. Also, if it is determined that it should not be removed, this should be added to give a NPOV:

"CNN:'Посол России в США С.Кисляк рассматривается американскими спецслужбами как высокопоставленный российский шпион и вербовщик...' Как вы думаете, это медийное дно или им есть ещё куда падать?" - Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Facebook post

("“What do you think, is this the [mainstream] media’s bottom or do they have where else to fall?”)

source: https://russian.rt.com/world/news/363747-zaharova-kislyak

original source: https://www.facebook.com/maria.zakharova.16775.73.150.255 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is me I had to figure out how to log inGunnar123abc (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gunnar123abc: when you say, "This is me", what do you mean? The IP address, Maria Zakharov, the Ambassador Kislyak, or something else? I will ask on your talk page as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The person that has been editing this article today is ignoring my posts regarding this. I am going to have to be BOLD!!!. FIRST: There are weasel words regarding the accusation that the ambassador is a spy. SECOND: CNN is the only source for this accusation, and they do not give any source for who these officials are. THIRD: Russians have completetly denounced the claim that he is a spy (which if the accusation should stand, the denial should be in the article as well)Gunnar123abc (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The info comes from a reliable source. RT is not a reliable source. Facebook is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not good enough sorry. You are ignoring BLP:GOSSIP AND BLP:CRIME and now even WEASEL! You can't accuse living people of being criminals on wikipedia with only a single anonymous source. Further, RT is a reliable source because it is simply being used to cite a quote from a Russian official. I only supplied the facebook to show that is it not fake to editors like you on this talk page. I think you have an axe to grind honestly.Gunnar123abc (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

CNN (or notRS sources like Daily Beast) is the only source for Kislyak=spy. Other RSs are pushing back against the characterisation http://abcnews.go.com/International/sergei-kislyak-russian-ambassador-spoke-jeff-sessions/story?id=45865497 CNN cited anonymous current and former U.S. intelligence officials on Thursday as saying they believed Kislyak was a top spy and recruiter of spies. But former U.S. ambassadors, as well as analysts that know Kislyak, expressed strong skepticism about the claim. “If he’s a spy then all ambassadors are spies,” said the former ambassador, Beyrle. “He’s not a spy. To call him a spy is to misunderstand what a diplomat, even a Russian diplomat, does.” This seems improper to include, with shaky sourcing, in the *Sessions* article on BLP grounds. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Immigration

@G1729: As interesting as your addition here on immigration is, I regret to inform you that it is probably WP:OR. To be honest, it's really good writing and informative, but I don't think it can stay, unless it is covered in secondary sources. However, I do know that press releases sometimes can be used as references; the times I have seen them were when they came from governmental agencies. I'll wait to see what others say, since there are many eyes on this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Ok, sorry if you feel it's WP:OR... Sessions' own website seemed a good place to go for his views on immigration. I added some secondary sources to the claims, but they are filled out from the news releases. If you think information should now be deleted, that's fine with me, but I do think that the immigration section is lacking, particularly given that he was an influential advisor to Trump on the issue (according to the Trump campaign) and that has been an important issue in the Trump presidency.G1729 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@G1729: The more secondary sources you can add to back up what you have written the more likely it is to stick. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I will try not to interfere with any work you do to improve it. I agree that the immigration section was not well filled out. I have read that Sessions was the toughest member of the Senate on immigration, but that seems more like someone's interpretation. I would like to hear more specific positions and activities: show don't tell. Which is what you were basically doing, and why I appreciated your work. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please update "Russia controversy" section

From:

In March 2016, Sessions came under scrutiny after reports surfaced that he had contact with Russian government officials during the 2016 U.S. presidential election

To:

In March 2017, Sessions came under scrutiny after reports surfaced that he had contact with Russian government officials during the 2016 U.S. presidential election Simonhoare (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Simonhoare: done, thank you for noticing the error! Marquardtika (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Official DOJ Portrait

It seems as though Sessions has a new official portrait provided and licensed by the Justice Department (https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-general); I wasn't able to locate a higher resolution version, however. Is there a place I'm not looking? Frevangelion (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• The new portrait is pretty ugly at such low resolution. I'd suggest using his Senate photo for now, not like his appearance has changed much. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Blockquotes

I think it is unnecessary and UNDUE to cite a whole huge quote from Al Frankin in the "Russian controversy" section. I think it should be trimmed to this:

At the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Senator Al Franken asked Sessions what he would do as Attorney General "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign." Sessions replied, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

References

I'm asking here, rather than just doing it, because it looks as if there has been some disagreement over this. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what he asked. Franked asked Sessions: If, based on the CNN article, there really was a continual exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, what Sessions would do if it were true. The question is constantly intentionally edited and misquoted to say something else. If people are going to dishonestly edit the quote, then for the time being, it's more important that the entire quote be used. Again, the actual question was, what would he do if there was a continual exchange of information taking place between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.MeropeRiddle (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support this change. As a fast-unfolding news event, I think we're running into a bit of WP:RECENTISM in terms of our coverage here, but hopefully as the days go by we can settle on content that accords due weight to this event. Marquardtika (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Franken never once asked if Sessions had any evidence, he said he read a CNN article and based on reading the article, if it turned out there really was continual communication, what did Sessions plan on doing. Read the quote in its entirety. Thats why the entire quote should be there, because people are trimming it to manipulate it to say something other than what Franken was actually asking.MeropeRiddle (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN's proposed wording. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

'If there is evidence, what do you plan to do?' is not the same as editing the quote to make it seem as if Franken is asking Sessions what evidence exists, the end of the Franken question is, what do you plan to do? Franken was never asking Sessions to provide actual evidence.MeropeRiddle (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, the question was specifically asking, if there was a continual exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government and what Sessions would do if it were true. The question is constantly intentionally edited and misquoted to say something else. If people are going to dishonestly edit the quote, then for the time being, it's more important that the entire quote be used. Again, the actual question was, what would he do if there was a continual exchange of information taking place between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.MeropeRiddle (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN. We should avoid long blockquotes, and this is essentially a primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Franken's quote should be trimmed back significantly or paraphrased. MeropeRiddle's objections would matter iff Sessions had actually answered the question that Franken posed, rather than give a tangential political response.- MrX 12:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

the question's delivery was mangled, and was ultimately, "what do you plan to do if the allegations of this CNN article are true?" I think it's important for people to realize that the question that was asked was delivered in a confusing manner, and that the question can be interpreted to be be asking many things. The recipient of the question answered based on his interpretation of the question being asked, and his response was as equally disjointed and it can be interpreted different ways.MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MeropeRiddle, the discussion here is trending strongly toward NOT using the blockquotes. As a matter of fact, no one but you has supported them. In defiance of everything everyone else has said here, you have now added additional blockquotes. (A blockquote for "No."? Come on!) I will give it one more day and then I am going to trim back the quotes with paraphrases or quotes contained in text. I know you feel passionately about this, but Wikipedia rules by consensus and there is just not a consensus at this point to include so much detail and verbiage. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not add a second set of block quotes another user did. My voiced concern was never about using quotes in the block form, my concern was, as I stated multiple times, that users are trimming the quotes down to make it appear as though Franken was asking a different question, which you ultimately did. And I said that since people aren't editing it appropriately, it would be best left in its original form. There have been multiple edit wars about it between other users, including educators who are upset the quote is being trimmed and misquted. Franken's question was more or less, "what do you plan to do if the allegations within this CNN article about this dossier are true?" To which Sessions ultimately replied, "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it." It also was not the only question he was asked.05:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

After watching the C-SPAN video, I noticed that the quote of Sessions was incorrect. In the process of correcting the quote, I have effectively reverted this edit by User:MeropeRiddle. The edit made to the quote juxtaposes a response from Sessions to a later question next to a question from Franken; this misleads the reader into thinking that is the response that Sessions gave to that question, which it isn't. Given that the entire discussion in that section is about what Sessions said, the quote MUST be accurate. The cited Time article and the C-SPAN video both show/confirm this.

I apologize, that was an error, I thought I entered it wrong, and was correcting it, but I was right the first time. It's all moot now anyways.MeropeRiddle (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The main controversy being documented here is about what Sessions said. Primary sources are permissible when used to illustrate the topic, and I believe that's the case here, so I have to disagree with User:Volunteer Marek.

(At any rate, my edit only seeks to make the quote correct, not to pass judgement on whether the quote should stand or not. But if it is to be left in, it should be accurate.)

—Deathanatos (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is what he said in oral testimony, in response to (but not directly answering) a question from Franken. If MeropeRiddle feels it is vital to include the entire context, we could summarize it as follows - trimming Franken's quote to the essentials, and quoting Sessions in full:

As Attorney General, Sessions came under intense scrutiny because of reports that he had met twice during the campaign with Russia's ambassador to the United States. That appeared to be at odds with his testimony at his confirmation hearing. At that hearing, Senator Al Franken cited reports that "There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government," and asked Sessions, "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?" Sessions responded, "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment."

References

Again, you are trimming the quote to say something that was not said, he was being asked about his awareness of the information contained within the Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier#Public_release (which it should be hyperlinked to) which was being released in the media that day from various outlets, which is why Franken said it all was just coming out. The dossier includes unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. Franken is asking him about the Dossier, and its disingenuous to manipulate the quote to say he was asking him about meeting twice with a Russian ambassador. I don't understand why people won't just leave the quote in its entirety as it was spoken between the two of them. I could care less if it was in block quotes. I did block quotes because people kept editing it, and I thought it made sense to just be honest, and let the actual quotes stand for themselves while it is currently in the news.MeropeRiddle (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And then move on to the material beginning "On March 1, news reports revealed…" We should leave out the Leahy exchange. Sessions' written answer "No" to Leahy's question should not be at issue, because Leahy specifically asked if he had been in contact with Russians "about the 2016 election". Sessions asserts that his answer was correct because he says his discussions with the ambassador did not involve the election.

I think the above meets the overwhelming consensus here not to include blockquotes of this material. BTW User:Deathanatos was correct to revert MeropeRiddle's insertion of an answer to a different question in place of Session's response to the question about involvement in the election. Thank you for that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)