Talk:Ernie Chambers

Original conversation from article start date

The sixth paragraph does not seem to have a NPOV in its discussion of Chambers' opinions on race issues. It would be nice to have some citations for the examples that are given.

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben7423 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be Wikified. The author's personal viewpoints about Ernie Chambers' views on race should not be featured so prominently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.83.109 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It does appear that someone does want to add their opinions on Chambers in this entry. I reverted it again, but, to 68.13.152.116, if you insist that your contribution has a neutral point of view, feel free to explain how this is the case on this discussion board. --Benfergy 20:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the third paragraph amounts to nothing more than opinion. Unless a citation from "many an attorney or fellow legislator" can be given, it should be stricken from the article.

I disagree with the statement above that says the article focuses on race too much. Um...HELLO? Have you ever heard Chambers speak? The man is obsessed with race to the point of paranoia.

Not that we should be talking about Chambers himself rather than the article, but... he is the only African American in the Nebraska Legislature, and only the second African American ever to serve in that body - with the previous Senator serving in 1892. Chambers "obsession" could be shown to be duly justified. • Freechild'sup? 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent citation note

Hey all,

I added a citation request to this article's claim that Chambers is a "Democrat." I must watch his weekly public-access television show a majority of the time, and he often mentions the fact that he has never garnered (at least in so much as financial) support from *any* political party, in which he often seems almost bitter, but proud. As far as I know he is an independent, but if his party registry illicits otherwise, I'd like to know. I would think such a label would be offensive to Chambers and even the DNC, unless true.

Added verification template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrio-fascist (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Attn: Editor of this article

To let it be known,

Chambers has a wikipediac vanguard in me. Please note: I will be watching this article like a hawk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrio-fascist (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Wow -- this article sounds like it was written and monitored by a member of this crazy Representative's own staff. I guess that would be you? I suppose that "Fascist" might really be a good name for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.138.142 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Party affiliation

I just saw a disturbing event on this article. The first line described him as a Republican this afternoon, and then - after some discussion on Orfay, it now lists him as a Democrat.

I searched his name on Google and found his state legislature web site, which lists no party affiliation. The fact that he ran for US Senate as a New Alliance Party member makes me doubt he is a Republican.

Can someone please either remove the epithet or verify it with outside citations?

---

Jay Duff Chicago, IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.106.187 (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Nebraska_Senator_sues_God

Some information should be added to the article about this weird incident. Contralya 13:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Various Edits

The way that quotes and phrases have been taken from articles has been in a fashion biased against Sen. Chambers, particularly in the 2006 Omaha schools section. I did my best to better clarify that section and give proper context with selections from the cited articles. I also added a little bit to the section about the lawsuit against God to better clarify that situation as well.

I moved some random statements around into more appropriate sections of the page and made some minor grammatical edits in other places. I also changed all references referring to him as "Chambers" to "Sen. Chambers". The fact he was not even being referred to as Mr. Chambers is in very poor taste.

SouthStExit 07:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was my choice to refer to the subject of the article as "Chambers" rather than anything else. WP is an encyclopedia, and should avoid the familiarity of everyday speech, such as using "mister" as an honorific. I will leave "senator" out of respect for his position - but, if you feel passionately about labeling elected officials by their position and honorifics, I would suggest that you have a long road to travel on WP, where politicians are simply subjects of articles. I do appreciate the rest of your edits though, and hope that you will attend to more articles on WP. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made additional minor edits to the page, mostly grammatical edits and moving some sentences to more appropriate positions in the article. I also added some clarification to the Legislative section pertaining to NCAA student athletes and included a source.

SouthStExit 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Veracity

I can't trust this article's veracity because, at the moment, it talks about something believable (that someone filed suit against god), but then talks about something wholly unbelievable (that a document "appeared" where god responded to the allegations). I see the CNN article, and I *still* don't believe it. PragmaticallyWyrd 07:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The way media paints Chambers is generally as a "maverick", and I think that's the point of his lawsuit is to demonstrate the inanity of such lawsuits. That response, where the document "appears", only shows that someone else doesn't get the point Chambers is trying to make. Anyhow, its all cited with reliable sources, so the truthfulness is evident. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestion is made that god actually did this. The liberal use of quotation marks in both the cited article and this article make this clear. As Freechild mentions these responses illustrate how the point Chambers is trying to make has been missed, not that god is really trying to file a response. However, I will say this point could be made more clear. If you don't want to do this, I will try and think about it on this weekend.Wolfrock 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Final year?

Was the 100th Legislature Session Chamber's final year or does he have another year to go? He spent the 100th making statements like "when I'm gone, this legislature is going down hill." Also should there be mention of the controversy surrounding term limits and the possibility that it may have been passed as an indirect action against Chambers? Nice or in evil (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The article can assert any of these points as long as there are reliable sources for the article. • Freechild'sup? 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Final year and Various Edits, etc.

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to stop in and make some clarifying notes again:

1) April 17, 2008 *was not* Sen. Chamber's final day as a senator; that is misleading, though truthful it might seem. The Winter Session of the Nebraska Unicameral ended on April 17, 2008, none of the state senators' terms ended on April 17, 2008. Ernie has stated this *many* times on his show. He will remain in office until after the elections in November, but will hold all the capacities and duties of a state senator until that time. I would recommend that section be altered. Also, the subsequent quote in the topic paragraph is an allustion to the change of legislative term limits in the Nebraska state constitution; it seems awkward to place at the forefront of an article on someone whose life and career is, in my mind, so complex.

2) In the "2006 Omaha Public Schools controversy" section, a quote is given without source; most of my complaints are of lack of references in the current article form. The section also quotes the "learning community" term, which would be a reference to legal entities created within the bill. I could see how this could be confusing for leymen.

3) Sen. Chambers has always appeared to be fairly private; I don't intend for any of the criticisms I make to be rude or offensive, but rather to make the point that anything we do record should be accurate, as should the structure. Overall, this article seems to be in *much* better condition than when I first saw it a couple years ago.

I have tried editing this article before in ways I've deemed very appropriate, only to be reedited to a completely different tone by the relevant wikipedia editor. I don't blame wikipedia, or the editors, or the oversight, but I think I've made my points, and if there are pertinent editors whom might wish to contact me for editing advice, I would respond to wikipedia communication.

Thanks, all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrio-fascist (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit Update

Does any one have a good source for the lawsuit being thrown out? All I know is that it was on the local news here in Omaha (but the I didn't see it in the Omaha World Herald). 68.229.190.8 (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Found one; however, according to the World-Herald the trial is proceeding(!). • Freechild'sup? 14:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article incorrectly states that the lawsuit against God came to an end on February 25, 2008 when a higher court rejected Chambers' appeal. That is not true. In fact, the trial judge didn't even issue his order until several months later (October 9, 2008) and Chambers didn't file his appeal until November 5, 2008. I have not yet come across the appellate court's response to his filing.

Recentism

This article, in its current form, appears to be very much slanted towards recent events. We have as much about Chambers' 2007 'lawsuit against God' as we have on the entire rest of his political career. This doesn't seem right, seeing as it was only one event, and not a particularly historically significant one; the Franklin scandal is far more historically significant, but we only have one paragraph about it here. The 'lawsuit against God' section should be reduced to a more reasonable length, to give a more balanced view of Mr. Chambers' career. Terraxos (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I started by cutting out paragraphs that aren't even ABOUT the lawsuit but are about the lawsuit that led to the lawsuit. Lot 49a^talk 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Widely regarded

"He is also a civil rights activist and is widely-regarded as Nebraska's most prominent and outspoken African American leader." quote from the article at this point. Widely regarded qualifies as weasel words. Who regards him as such? Quote a source or tell us who regards him as most prominant & outspoken, otherwise this passage needs to be shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.95.31 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and changed it. I answered your question, i.e. "who" regards him as the most prominent and outspoken, and the answer is, "the citizens of the state of Nebraska". I have no reference for that other than my own, i.e. I live in Nebraska. Warren Fish (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The state of Nebraska changed the state constitution to get him out of office. When he ran for governor, he received less than 1% of the vote. The only opinion I've ever seen spoken of Chambers while living in Nebraska is that he sees everything as a race issue and that he is crazy. Yet the article states that he is "widely regarded" by the "citizens of the state of Nebraska" as this fantastic leader. When the state passes a constitutional amendment specifically against you, and you can't get 1% of the vote in the state, then the numbers have spoken to the opposite. Enderandrew (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about purpose of lawsuit

The explanation that Chambers gives for his lawsuit against God (that he wants to demonstrate that "you cannot prohibit the filing of suits" in order to keep the court open to all) is called "apparently tongue-in-cheek" in this article. An alternative explanation (that he wanted to protest a specific supposedly frivolous suit) is treated as fact. But, every direct quote that I can find from Chambers suggests that this first, dismissed explanation is actually the man's real motivation. This recent letter to the editor written by Chambers is an example:

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-jan-28-1.2450403

The article should be changed to reflect Chambers's intended meaning for his (admittedly confusing) symbolic action. 98.23.141.168 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How would you reword the entire section? petrarchan47tc 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The link says "element not valid". petrarchan47tc 00:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are two articles that shed light on the purpose of the lawsuit.

• Chambers own explanation: http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-jan/article_a1f060b6-cc47-5757-8a11-4b131fbe483b.html
• A clarification from the Lincoln Journal Star: https://www.newspapers.com/image/298363028/?terms=Ernie%2BChambers%2Blawsuit

I'm planning to update the section to reflect this information in the coming weeks. I welcome input and help from others.Jno.skinner (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Generally agreed" he would win?

What sources "generally agreed" Chambers would have won another term if he didn't have to step down in 2009 following the term-limits law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.115.152 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

COI Good Will Disclosure

I edited this page. My father, who is a lawyer, defended David Rice of the Rice/Poindexter case; he knows Ernie Chambers from that and possibly from my father's anti-Vietnam war activities and participatiom in civil rights gatherings locally, as well as his work as a family lawyer in the Omaha community. My father also obviously knows many judges and politicians in Omaha and Lincoln because it was and still to this day can be a very small town. I used to work as a runner (to the courthouse) for my dad during high school. I do not know Chambers personally beyond having been seen Chambers in passing (as in my father waving hello) a few times as a young girl when walking to the courthouse with my dad. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:

• "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."

More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot of effort to respond to one edit, Guy Macon (talk)! I hope that this is something that you have saved as stored text and didn't write it for this edit. I appreciate your diligence in making the infobox correct, in your opinion, but it seems like a bit of overkill. I apologize -- I made a mistake undoing your edit and will not touch the entry in the infobox going forward. But really, only a few paragraphs was necessary. Your point is made. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I do a lot of editing where I correct the same error on a bunch of pages. You would be amazed at how often someone writes something like "Canberra is is the capital city of Australia". I go through page after page, fixing the problem, and when the first person reverts me (yes there are people who revert simple "is is" corrections) I write up a brief talk page comment and save it for later. If someone really insists on retaining the error, I write up something longer and more convincing. After that point it is all cut and paste. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that this article has been the focus of what is a "project" to go over every contribution I have made to Wikipedia with good intention and good faith. It appears that the result of this process means that fully cited content will get / is deleted -- which seems to be a typical effort of many Wikipedia editors sadly. So it's too bad that articles like this one on Senator Chambers has been affected, and I apologize that my edits have triggered a process that may have reduced content that previously existed on the page. The deleted content is mostly from the Legacy section, and includes quotes, which are apparently unacceptable on Wikipedia, even though they are again fully cited. I am pasting them here in case another editor might want to make an attempt to re-write the content so it can be included in the article, as I continue to stand by the information I added as I think it makes the article better. That said, I have lost confidence in my ability to pass muster with the copyvio police on Wikipedia, and have tried to reduce contributions to actions that involve less copyediting. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

2.3.6 needs update

Nebraska's November 2016 vote brought the death penalty back, so "The 10 inmates...will now serve life sentences as the mechanism... has been removed by this bill" is out of date. I'm not changing it myself since I don't know the specifics (are the inmates all returned to death row, or does it depend on something else? Is the mechanism actually back, now, or is it still in process?) or how best to phrase it. Can someone better informed fix this?Alianoraree (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've taken care of this, bringing the paragraph up to date with the referendum results and removing a certain amount of recentism. The acquisition of enough signatures on the petition kept the repeal bill from going into effect, so the status of the death-row inmates is unchanged from before the introduction of the bill—see the October 15, 2016, World-Herald article cited in the updated paragraph. — Ammodramus (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernie Chambers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170128014511/http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/statepubsonline/pubs/legisbios/leg1970-1971.pdf to http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/statepubsonline/pubs/LegisBios/leg1970-1971.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)