Talk:Louis Farrakhan/Archive 1

UFO abduction

Abducted? whats this s**t? this b***s**t? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.33.98 (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article one sided?

I see that the controversy section has Farrakhan's responses to accusations of racism and homosexual bigotry, but I do not see the comments he made that lead to these accusations. Therefore, the article is too one sided. From reading this article, I do not understand why he feels he has to defend himself against accusations. In other words, there is nothing that forms the basis of why he is accused of being a racist or has homosexual bigotry.

What did he say that leads people to believe he is a racist or has homosexual bigotry ?

Calypso Career?

The last paragraph is one of the most ridiculous I've seen on here. Why the backstory about the difficulties of breaking in to the Calypso scene? It also reads like a very biased portrayal of someone who, by gollly, tried that whole Calypso thang and it just didn't work out. Delete?Tpwheatley 06:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

I wanted to ask everyone how you think we're coming on making this article free from editor POV. Are we presenting the facts without coloring them to our own tastes or distastes? Do you feel the tag on the front page should come off soon? If not, what would it take? Thanks. Peace --DjSamwise 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is still in dispute. Because of disputes the improvements to this article have been stalled. There is still a substantial amount of information that could be added. This is important in light of his current health crisis. Should anything happen, his legacy will come into question and who knows maybe this could be a candidate for featured article. But in its current state, from a writing or language perspective, is not very enjoyable to read.

Understandably many editors have very strong feelings about this article which is primarily a story of racism( white on black racism, black on white racism etc). It is still biased against farrakhan and does little to show why he is influential. The reason his alleged racism is so important is because he is very influential in his community. Furthermore in public and on the record he portrays himself as a moderate.

This article should capture the whole essence of who farrakhan is as opposed to a list of one-liners of some of the more absurd things he has said. Then it would be more neutral.Muntuwandi 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. His story highlights racism on all sides. He was purposefully agitating to get his people to do something. This make for an inherrent hotbed of contention. Nevertheless, snips of quotes in the right context serve mainly to highlight the source of the contention in the same way as summaries of his defense serve to show how he'd like to be seen. I think the reason his racist allegations are so contended is that many statements unjustly blame millions improperly, as does any blanket racial remark does. --DjSamwise 17:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think we can continue to edit without these views being stated. :) The article as historically documented andcited should be able to speak for itself. --DjSamwise 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

You can all cover up anything you want about the guy on this page, but anyone with half a brain will see through the bullshit and realize Farrakhan is clearly racist and anti-Semetic.

--68.192.92.58 00:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly. I don't agree with Farrakhan's general belief system, but anti-Semitic? He occasionally criticises certain Jewish organisations, and the State of Israel. Does that make him anti-Semitic? He has criticised the Rothschilds for being shareholders in the Federal Reserve of the USA. Even the Rothschilds have recently criticised the State of Israel. I suppose they are 'anti-semites', too? Let us not try to counter mobbing and xenophobia with broad witch-hunting for 'anti-Semites'. Farrakhan is certainly 'racist' in the sense that his creed revolves around the Black Race. However, anti-Semitic is not an accurate label. He associates with many Jewish groups and individuals. He could be called 'anti-Zionist', for sure. So are many Orthodox Jews (e.g. Jews Against Zionism), and so are many Jews who disagree with the USA/Israeli foreign policy in the Middle-East. Matthew A.J.?.B. 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that's the sort of statement made by people with only half a brain. But people with whole brains need actual evidence before they "realize" things. -- 98.108.194.104 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Farrakhan has made some outrageous statements, and his opponents never tire of trumpeting them as "evidence" of his alleged nefariousness. One wonders why he doesn't retract such statements.

One reason may be that a retraction may be seen as a sign of weakness and thus may do more public relations harm than good to him and/or his movement.

Minister Farrakhan has cooperated with the Unification Movement, despite Rev. Moon's well-known pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish stance. I know it's puzzling that he hasn't taken back his anti-Semitic remarks, but I think it's more of a refusal to back down (or "knuckle under") to pressure than a continued commitment to old ideas.

I say this on the basis of several hours of research, including watching videotapes of his sermons. Also, my friend and fellow Unificationist David Eaton produced the stage show for the Million Family March, and he wouldn't have done so if he thought Farrakhan was bad.

--Uncle Ed 13:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Even the muckraking Rick Ross, an advocate of deprogramming and an opponent of the both Moon and Farrakhan, concedes:

Farrakhan, 67, who has suffered from prostate cancer, emerged from his illness earlier this year with new messages of reconciliation. While Farrakhan watchers are divided about the sincerity of his change of heart, the new messages of inclusiveness are evident in Farrakhan's approach to the march. He has invited people of all ethnicities, races and religions -- even Jews -- to march "under their own banners" at the Million Family March. [1]

The interview links at the bottom of the article address the so-called outrageous statements and besides they are fantastic reading. MisterSheik 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't think Farrakhan is antisemitic, then you don't understand antisemitism. I say this without any particular rancor, and I agree that his antisemitism should not be the focus of the article. At the same time, this piece should not act as an apologia for every abhorrent statement the man's made in the course of his public life. NPOV would recognize that he's a complex individual, neither to be needlessly vilified nor mindlessly extolled. Woodah (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Jewish, I understand antisemitism, but I have some doubts that Farrakhan is antisemitic. Your sort of "then you don't understand" ad hominem is the opposite of the sort of fact-based analysis appropriate to Wikipedia. -- 98.108.194.104 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

removed the following paragraph

Along with a few more minor edits, I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

He has aroused considerable controversy by claiming that white people are the product of genetic experiments performed by negro scientists, and that they will rule the earth for 6,000 years before being "crushed by the black gods". Furthermore he has called Judaism a "gutter religion" and advocates violence against Jews and Christians.

First, the part about "negro scientists" has survived somehow from this POV edit by an anon IP that was mostly fixed. While Farrakhan has made some weird statements about the "origins of white people", they have been all over the map over many years and it's pretty hard to say just what he actually belives. Second, the material about Judaism being a gutter religion has been repeatedly debunked, perhaps most effectively by conservative economist Jude Wanniski in a letter to the New York Times -- it can be found on his website here: http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/04-05-00.html -- as well as here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20869 -- Also a Google search on the phrase "crushed by the black gods" only finds Wikipedia and its mirrors.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

removed because it was taken out of context

The following paragraph was removed because it was taken out of context and is out of place in such a short article-- see the ADL web site: http://www.adl.org/presrele/NatIsl_81/2686_81.asp

Farrakhan is virulently anti-Semetic, stating in 1996 “And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood…You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone.”

Also see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nation_of_Islam_anti-semitism

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The editor definately threw in some POV there. Nevertheless the quote was accuracte was it not? --DjSamwise 03:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No context is provided around the quoted statement (audience, setting, etc.). The fact that the quote begins with a preposition, and that it ends in what seems to be a response to a threat, indicates to me that the quote is taken out of context. --Guest

Sing-a-Long link from Fade to Black Comedy Magazine

I removed the link [* http://www.fadetoblack.com/farrakhan/index.html "Sing A-Long with Louis Farrakhan", a look at his career as a Calypso singer]

Here's some of the content:

Although unfamiliar with Calypso music we had a hunch that these recordings would be rich with comedic possibilities.... we were not wrong. So, we donned our grass skirts, grabbed our favorite maracas, put on our Carmen Miranda headsets, and dove into the world of Calypso music. We called hundreds of antique record stores across the country, dug through countless bargain bins and placed numerous 'want ads' in search of any and all recordings by "The Charmer".

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From VfD

A substantial number of quotes alleging Farrakhan's anti-semitic views have been merged into this article from "Nation of Islam anti-semitism". That stand-alone article was thought to be inherently POV and difficult to maintain. I believe the quotes should be integrated into this article where they can be placed in context. I don't think I did a very good job of integrating them, though.

To preserve GFDL, the contribution history of that page is pasted below. Rossami 06:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• 01:19, 5 Sep 2004 Yath m
• 09:06, 2 Sep 2004 Pteron ( vfd)
• 14:07, 8 Aug 2004 RedWolf m (disambiguation: German)
• 18:17, 20 Jun 2004 IZAK
• 18:15, 20 Jun 2004 IZAK
• 04:00, 8 May 2004 128.59.6.111 (wikified)
• 18:18, 22 Dec 2003 82.49.84.154
• 14:05, 22 Dec 2003 146.50.160.82 (Arabic people are semitic)
• 04:18, 19 Nov 2003 67.101.44.69 (Copy edit (ocotber -> October))
• 22:37, 7 Feb 2003 RK (new article.)

this section needs major work

I removed the following part from the article because it needs major work. we can keep in here until it gets worked on:

Most Muslims all over the world reject and disapprove of this group because of its seemingly divergence, sometimes extreme, from the teachings of the mainstream and original Islam. Many Middle Eastern Muslims use the derogatory term Farrakhanism to refer to the Nation of Islam. But it must be noted that

Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, himself said: "Three generation after me, will no longer be of me". This was stated in reference to his Arab bretheren who he saw going astray from Allah's straight path. And look at the Muslim World today; bowing down to the military might of America instead of standing on the firm resolution that there is no God but Allah, as instructed in the holy Qur'An. The only man, today, that stands on this is Louis Farrakhan. And he has no carnal army to back him, yet he stands.

While the group calls its followers Muslims, in reality, they have very little to do with the Arab culture and traditions imposed on the faith of Islam. Islam believes in the total transcendance of almighty Allah, while they teach that black people are gods, under the Supreme God Allah. As stated in the Bible: Ye are all Gods, children of the Most High God. This totally destroys the doctrine and system of white supremacy imposed on the so-called negro in America. Islam maintains universal brotherhood. Islam teaches that prophethood ended with Muhammad ibn Abdullah, more than 1400 years ago. They teach that Farrakhan's teacher, Elijah Muhammad ibn Maryam, is the exalted Christ of the Christians and that Master Fard Muhammad is the long awaited Mahdi of the Muslim World. Islam teaches principles of spiritual and moral decorum such as prayer, fasting, charity, pilgimage, etc., Elijah Muhammad taught the same but gradually introduced them to his people because of the horrific condition they had been placed in by way of their wicked, caucasian slave-masters. Some Middle Eastern Muslims believe Elijah Muhammad and his followers will be severely punished in the Hereafter, however they have made the United States a God besides Allah in their cowardice and lust for worldly and material gain.

Kingturtle 05:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like this last excerpt right here, but I believe it wouldn't have an appropriate place in this article because it focuses more on the Nation of Islam than it doeso n Farrakhan. You could insert it into the Nation of Islam article, however, but anything put into this article would better serve the purposes of the article by being shortened and very brief in describing the Nation of Islam.

That last excerpt can hardly be taken seriously as encyclopedia material, in any article. Not a single citation, which makes sense since it's full of opinions, impossible to validate. 67.82.115.55 (talk)TC —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Next Million Man March

Farrakhan is reorganizing the Million Man March in October to mark the 10th anniversary of the march. I went ahead and put it in the article. If anyone objects to it I won't care if you delete it, just thought I'd let you know. Theburninghelm 04 Apr 2005

Farrakhan as musician

Could we please have some sources for this section? Phrases like:

• ...which was widely seen as...
• Reviews were mixed, but some critics agreed that...

especially need to have some references. -Willmcw 23:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Farrakahn as gay icon

An anonymous user keeps inserting a link to Farrakahn as gay icon. I thought it mere vandalism, but this person says he really is. I Googled, and found no support for this. Anyone want to defend the idea that Farrakhan is a gay icon? Let me know, or I'll revert it. IronDuke 05:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.jtf.org/america/america.malcolm.x.homosexual.htm This is mainly information on Malcolm X being a homo-sexual, but it also mentions how Louis Farrakahn had homo-sexual encounters. Louis Farakahn has also upset other conservative black leaders by having gay activists speak at his rallies. 68.252.187.105 16:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for that link. that's a 'hate' site - anything to impugn the character of the persons mentioned appears to be fair game. generally speaking, if a gay person considered someone a gay icon, they would not write pages and pages concerning how evil and horrible homosexuals are. this is obviously vandalism. you can advocate whatever you want elsewhere. you've provided no evidence to support the claim that farrakhan is a 'gay icon'. WP is not an advocacy site.Anastrophe 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a homo-sexual category Farrakahn belongs in? 68.75.169.78 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gay icons don't need to be gay, see Cher. However, I can't imagine that anyone considers Farrakhan to be one. That'd need to be sourced. -Willmcw 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gutter religion, dirty religion, and so on

I have attempted to tighten up this passage -- I think that in such contentious matters we should be as scrupulous as possible, preferring direct quotes over characterizations by commentators, and carefully indentifying commentators when characterizations are used. --HK 14:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that effort, and I extended it further. Charles Bierbauer of CNN never said that Farrakhan created controversy, so I removed that clause. -Willmcw 21:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now cited the quote to CNN, even though CNN cites Reuters -- I couldn't find a direct Reuters cite on the web. I did this because there are evidently disputes about what Farrakhan did and didn't say, and under the circumstances Wikipedia should be circumspect about simply reporting these quotes as fact. I didn't intend to say that "Bierbauer said Farrakhan created controversy" -- that was an artifact from the previous edit that I should have removed. --HK 06:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What disputes? Half the world says that Farrakhan called other groups "bloodsuckers" and I don't see any rebuttal that he didn't. I added a half-dozen cites to show this, then removed them all as redundant. He said it, that much is pretty clear. -Willmcw 09:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Would a link to the Anti-Defamation League's page on Farrakhan's quotes (here) be appropriate as external citation? Given that they are targeted by his diatribes, you could easily consider it a biased source, but I wouldn't think they would change his words. --jhamner 08 May 2006

On a serious note, the UFO stuff would benefit from a direct link to a reference. I am having a hard time believing he would say that and still be taken seriously. Prophet Willie

Done and Done, Prophet

Where did the UFO quotes go? If he said it, I'd like to see that info. --DjSamwise 03:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam Holland 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ADL Link

The link to a page of quotes from Farrakhan's speeches compiled by the ADL is perfectly acceptable. First, the ADL is a perfectly credible source, it may have been criticized, but so has the NAACP or the New York Times or just about any other significant organization. Second, the "bias" of the source is irrelevant, the link contains nothing more than quotes taken directly from Farrakhan's speeches which have been printed elsewhere, including in this article. Third, the link is clearly in the external links section, not the references section, links to not need to be from unbiased or uncriticized organizations so long as they are useful and factual which this is. GabrielF 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Farrakhan and religion

The item is not Wikipedia:No original research as it is cited. Neither is it a POV as the statements after are simple translation from 1st person to 3rd person.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Muntuwandi 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Category

It is neither my intent to defend farrakhan and neither do I condone any form of discrimination, be it racism, anti-semitism or any other ism. But there is problem the anti semitic people category due to its subjective nature. What would be the acceptable criteria to place anyone in the list. Indeed the category has been nominated at least four times for deletion or renaming because of the same problem. The page is currently protected from editing until disputes are resolved which underscores the problem at hand.

You're right -- it would be a mistake to defend Farrakhan. Please don't remove this well-warranted category and replace it with a clear POV fork category. There is no reasonable dispute to listing Farrakhan in this category, and just removing it without any attempt at an explanation is POV pushing and it must end. --Mantanmoreland 03:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree that the article is subjective. I think Farrakhan is a great man who has done alot for the black community. Other than heresay and genuine dislike for the man, no one has ever heard say anything demeaning about Jews. They on the other hand refer him to a "Black Hitler", which appears to me much more deragotory, and diminishes the actual trauma of the Jews who survived the holocaust. Just my opinion. MPA 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The first category is a point of view as mentioned earlier, the category is disabled from protection due to its controversial nature which is indicative of the different opinions that people have regarding who should be on the list or whether the list should exist at all. Whereas the the category second category is undisputable that there are some who believe he is an anti-semite.

Secondly it is not original research if a reputable cited source is included ( of which i hav included 8 different citations).

In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful, we give Him praise and thanks for His goodness and His mercy to the human family. The greatest of His goodness and the most magnificent of His mercy is His guidance that He sends to the human family through the mouths and example of His prophets and His messengers of God. We thank Him for Moses and The Torah. We thank him for Jesus and The Gospel. We thank Him for Muhammad and The Qur'an. Peace be upon these worthy servants of God and all of those messengers and prophets that God has sent to every nation and every people, bringing to them His guidance....

for example if farrakhan says "we thank him for moses and the torah" and an edit reads "farrakhan thanks god for moses and the torah". This is just a translation from 1st person to 3rd person. Not my opinion just from his mouth. if this is not considered by some wikipedians as worthy material it may create an impression that some would like to portray him negatively and selectively remove some of the more positive statements that farrakhan may make.

No, you can't report what you heard him say. That is original research.--Mantanmoreland 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not hear him. It's from reputable news sources like cnn. eg cnn transcript Muntuwandi 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, then it is not OR. But the quoted material is unencyclopedic and still isn't usable. The paragraph of spin is definitely OR. If it is not OR, what reliable source says what you say it says? You can't include a lengthy transcript of a prayer and then slap on a paragraph of your own interpretation, along with a link to the article talk page! Also your edits are obvious, blatant whitewashing and POV pushing.--Mantanmoreland 04:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very relevant as farrakhan is often accused of being anti-christian, anti-semitic and yet in his speeches he often begins by saying the words in "thanking allah" for the principal leaders of the three abrahamic religions. Furthermore as the title heading is "Farrakhan and religion", it is relevant to write about what his philosophy is on world religions.

If anything the few remaining lines quoted here are quite inconsistent with the title heading.

"Louis Farrakhan has also alluded to a figure called "Yacub" (or, Biblically, "Jacob") in regards to whites. According to Farrakhan's mentor, Elijah Muhammad, blacks were "born righteous and turned to unrighteousness," while the white race was "made unrighteous by the god who made them (Mr. Yacub)."

The remaining lines have practically very little mention of farrakhan and any religious philosophy. One could ask for instance what about farrakhan and buddhism or farrakhan and the catholic church or farrakhan and mainstream islam.

This is possibly due to systemic bias Muntuwandi 04:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Article

The depth and breadth of this article can definitely be improved. Farrakhan has been in the public eye for over 40 years so I believe there is a lot more that can be written about him. So I believe if new material is added, it is detrimental to simply revert back to the same stale version. Rephrasing, paraphrasing or additional information should definitely be welcome. I also feel that having a one dimensional approach by simply focussing on one aspect of farrakhan is unconstructive. For example I have added a few details about his personal life, family etc some wikipedians edit it out. A fundamental part of any biographical article should be personal and family details to get a better understanding of the person involved. Once again simply reverting without adding new material is not going to improve the quality of any article.Muntuwandi 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The family stuff would be okay (with heavy editing -- we aren't concerned about his grandson's b-ball career, for example). If you can find a good source that says, "Farrakhan is religiously very tolerant," that's fine. But trying to demonstrate it yourself by quoting a random speech doesn't do that. But some of your stuff is a good start. I'll try to be more helpful when I have a little more time. IronDuke 03:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think mustapha farrakhan's basketball career is an interesting bit of trivia. As the CBS article stated he is likely to play college basketball and may get some publicity. However his grandfathers name is likely to overshadow his abilities and talent.

It is not my wish to portray "Farrakhan as religiously very tolerant". But I feel that the current article portrays him as religiously very intolerant. He is a controversial character- to some he is an electrifying and charismatic orator with a wise and insighful understanding of race relations. To others he is a crazy bigot. The article in its current state is biased towards portraying him as a crazy bigot. I would like both sides to be portrayed in the article. It is for this reason I try to include some of his positive aspects. For instance Farrakhan has been married for 53 years without scandal. With the breakdown of the american family( single parent households, 50% divorce rate), He is a good example to african americans regarding family values.

I think the article is biased because if an edit is added with positive inclination its seen as POV. But these are just relevant facts.Muntuwandi 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not just blatant POV-pushing and whitewashing of the subject matter, but also the insertion of original research. That's been explained to you time and time again by several editors.--Mantanmoreland 13:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

just because the material has positive things about farrakhan does not make it original research. I think at this stage it is pretty obvious that Mantanmoreland and possibly a few others really do not like farrakhan. I can understand that but one should not let personal feelings obsucure ones judgement and objectivity. I am comfortable criticizing farrakhan and I can praise him for his positive side too. Unfortunately I do not think you have the objectiveness to do the same. Muntuwandi 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an open mind not a close one. I invite anyone interested in this article to make contributions to this discussion page to improve its quality.

What part of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV don't you understand? Your edits in this article are oblivious to those two concepts. At one point you put a references in the article to the talk page, and persisted in doing so for days. You should not edit Wikipedia articles until you come up to speed on basic policies.--Mantanmoreland 13:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

If you could point out sentences that have WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and explain why. I believe I have included material that is cited from reputable sources and is relevant to the article. Yes I did at one point put a reference to the talk page that had more references to external links. I would not have done that if the references I had included were being ignored. for example if farrakhan has been married since 1953- this is not an opinion, point of view or original research. It is a hard fact and is relevant.

The point of this article is not to eliminate any POV but to accurately demonstrate LF's POV without our POV taintig it. SOmetimes accurate, well documented work is very POV, but it shold be his as the subject and not ours as the wikipedians. --DjSamwise 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The subhead Farrakhan and anti-white statements one sided. Wikipedia policy( see neutrality) states "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

I am adding information from the Meet the press interview as it is more inline with NPOV policy. Russert asks Mr. Farrakhan about a variety of controversial statements he has made and farrakhan gives his response. I think this is better than "farrakhan said this" and "farrakhan said that" without getting his responses to those allegations.

If one is disagreable to this, be welcome to add comments to the talk page to help resolve disputes.

Muntuwandi 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm.. If it's a biography we are not to present "both sides" of people's views on the subject. All that were posted were direct quotes of obviously racist statements.--DjSamwise 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

both sides are important because as is common knowledge the press can and often does take things out context for the sake of sensationalism and publicity. I'm not implying that farrakhan did not say any of the things he is accused of but it is important to get his side of the story as well.Muntuwandi 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

His side as you call it doesn't address the issue. He was asked if all white men are devils> He did not confirm nor deny his previously racist position. He instead added that in addition anyone who does evil is just as much a devil. He did not confirm nor deny racism in what you posted. There was no information in such a quote. If there is a quote where he Denies racism, please add that next to the one where he claims it. A man can change but a wiki biography should be an accurate documentation of it, yes?. peace.--DjSamwise 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is well established that has made anti-white statements, and he has made many of them. Stop using "NPOV" as an excuse for POV-pushing and whitewashing.--Mantanmoreland 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe we need a moderator or administrator to look into this article because your language is very harsh and you have no compromise even when I extend an olive branch for discussion. Muntuwandi 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

NBC quotes

An extensive list of quotes from NBC was included that needed editing. Among the quotes were a large paragraph on the teachings of The Nation of Islam that Farrakahn from a different source, a pragraph on Farakahn notsaying whether or not hethought all whites were devils and a paragraph on why Farrakahn believes NOI doctrine. I simplified it by removingthe paragraph quoting nation of Islam Doctrine sources, removing the section that didnt say whether or not Farakahn believed all whites were devils and summarized the long paragraph on Farakahn justifying his belief on origins. I kept it NPOV, true to what Farakahn says and on topic. peace. --DjSamwise 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

a blind edit revision was made by Muntuwandi without any discussion. Sir, i've noticed a pattern of defending Farrakahn, preferring mild quotes over harsh ones and when placed side by side..some editors here seem to want his politically correct quotes to have the most visibillity. Let's keep this NPOV. At the very least, please discuss before erasing edits.. --DjSamwise 04:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that edits should be discussed. I guess you should also have discussed your proposed edits before removing the nbc quotes. We had been discussing the quotes previously. I am troubled by this article. I think everyone agrees that farrakhan is a controversial leader. According to wikitionary a controvery is a debate, discussion of opposing opinions[10]. In order for this article to be neutral it must include opposing opinions. There is also a tendency of editors to just pick the wackiest things that Farrakhan is accused of saying. This is cherry picking. Please give a more detailed explanation of why the quotes are being removed because they are equally from farrakhan's mouth.I am open to summarizing but not to their removal. Without discussing which points you would like changed and why, we will have to use the version as per last NPOV dispute.Muntuwandi 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks forresponding Muntuwandi|Muntuwandi. I removed a quote that didn't pertain to the discussion. The other quotes I made smaller to fit with the previous quotes. There fore, the quotes where he makes a racist of himself are given equal space to the quotes where he doesn't as much. Isn't that what you are asking for? --DjSamwise 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there has been a different misunderstanding as well. The section you are placing your quote on is the section for displaying what the subject has said about race. In your quote he does not say anything on his view of race. He niether confirms nor denies racism in the quote. Perhaps if you feel the quote is valuable, start a new section for it highlighting what you think is being said. But leave the section on Farakan and race about specific quotes of or against racism. Let's not dillute the subject, yes? Thank you and peace. --DjSamwise 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Teachings of the Nation Of Islam Quote

This is being removed. There is a page for the NOI, stick to the facts of the page. --DjSamwise 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to note is that "Yakub" is a part of NOI philosophy. Elijah Mohammad, Malcolm x( at one time) and farrakhan all subscribed to that philosophy. Without more information it will appear that these are farrakhan's words alone. This has the effect of portraying him as the only crazy one. I therefore propose to either remove all reference to Yakub and leave them on the NOI page or to include more text.Muntuwandi 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a simple statment like "consistent with NOI teachings, Farakahn believes.. etc. etc." and then refference appropriately. I don't think we don't need to put the whole paragraph just for that. It would consume too much of the reading space for the point IMO.--DjSamwise 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Example: [Consistant with the teachings of the Nation of Islam] Farakahn has [taught about] a figure called "Yacub" (or "Jacob") with reference to whites. [NOI rf][Farakan ref] --DjSamwise 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (personally I think it's not needed but am willing to come to a consencus) Peace. --DjSamwise 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

aledged vs documented

Muntuwandi|Muntuwandi, If someone makes a statement on race that generates contention and it is documented and cited.. then don't say "He ALLEDGEDLY said" just say "He said" It's well documented and cited that Contentious statements on race have been made so please avoid the poor word choice. --DjSamwise 05:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Orator, syntax, and the Joos

Okay, Muntuwandi. First, how many people attended an LF rally in 1993 is not interesting, not notable, and not relevant. Also, I believe many more people regard him as a rambling nutcase than they do a persuasive, powerful speaker. Next, the edits I am reverting are poorly worded, verging on semi-literate. To take but one example: "overshadowing" does not mean the same thing as "shadowing." Lastly, there have been numerous attempts to insert borderline antisemitic POV into this article. I assume your part in that is not deliberate but in any case, it's not helping. IronDuke 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke. One of the main reasons farrakhan is famous is because he is a public speaker. To say he is a powerful speaker without some fact to back it up would sound like an opinion( but i would be open to that). Most importantly Time magazine[11] and BBC [12] think he is charismatic speaker. According to Time, he could fill any town hall in Chicago. However being a powerful speaker does not necessarily mean what one says is sensible, moral or just( eg propaganda is often disseminated by powerful speakers)

on syntax. The bulk of this information is paraphrased from the Time magazine article. overshadow or shadow - the thesaurus lists them as synonyms[13]. If you haven't already read the article, I would suggest you do. I am also not too happy with the current syntax eg

"The reporter printed the quote and Jackson was widely criticized and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce "If you harm this brother, it'll be the last one you ever harm."

The sentence has two "and" s, it also contains too much information for one sentence:

• reporter prints quotes
• jackson criticized
• receives death threats
• farrakhan responds
• farrakhans quote.

Finally I think the title for bbc article was very appropriate "Prophet or Bigot". I think this article would be better if it would present the dichotomy that Farrakhan is. To some he is a charismatic leader and to others he is a bigot, a rambling nutcase to use your words[14]. To not show both side would be a disservice to the readersMuntuwandi 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the minor point. Overshadow and shadow are plausible synonyms only in the sense of to dim or darken. When used in the sense of "to follow" (the fourth entry in the link you provided), overshadow, you will note, is not a synonym. You are correct to point out that some find Farrakhan "electrifying." Perhaps we can juxtapose those thoughts with "incoherent" and "rambling." Some sources: [15], [16], [17], [18].

i propose this

• adding that he is an electrifying speaker but not everyone agrees.
• what about the sentence? Muntuwandi 03:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Or we could add that he rambles incoherently, but not everyone agrees. I don't understand what you meant when you wrote "what about the sentence?" IronDuke 15:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

yeh, i'm on Osi fan.

This is the sentence : "The reporter printed the quote and Jackson was widely criticized and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce "If you harm this brother, it'll be the last one you ever harm."

During a discussion with a black reporter, Jackson referred to New York City "Hymietown." Though Jackson thought he was speaking off the record, the reporter printed the quote. Jackson was widely criticized for the slur and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce "If you harm this brother, it'll be the last one you ever harm."

Weird that Osi and Strahan aren't doing more, no? IronDuke 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets add him as a leader in the AA community and an orator in the lead. I really dont think that is a POV discuss. --HalaTruth(????) 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He's David Duke with a darker skin tone in the end, nothing more. He doesn't care about the "black community", it's just a front for him to hate Jews. He's Fred Phelps with a different religion. Nothing more, get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Orator or what

Did you you see him on the tavis smiley show, boy the floor was on fiyah. when ur good no one can take it away from you. Most powerful speech this century —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

One of the longest marriages

List of people with the longest marriages yes Farrakhan made it into the list wow!--HalaTruth(????) 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This link is irrelevant to the article and was not even inserted in a way that was grammatically correct. Removed. Soonercary 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Million Man March discrepancy

Under the 'Nation of Islam' heading:

"On October 16, 1995 Farrakhan convened a broad coalition of roughly five thousand black men in what many say was the largest march in American history, the hyperbolically named Million Man March. Farrakhan, along with New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and other prominent black Americans marked the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March by holding a second march, the Millions More Movement on October 14, 2005 through October 17, 2005, in Washington.

In a 2005 Black Entertainment Television (BET) poll, Farrakhan was voted the 'Person of the Year'. [8]

In a February 2006 AP-AOL "Black Voices" poll, Farrakhan was voted the fifth most important black leader with 4% of the vote[9].

[edit] Orator

Though controversial, Farrakhan is an electrifying speaker with a powerful allure. In his prime, crowds all around the United States would throng to his speeches for moral uplift and entertainment. His orations typically last up to three hours. His charisma played a significant role in drawing almost a half million people to the million man march[10]."

Roughly 5,000 does not equal almost half a million. Arinna 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Arinna

It now says 2 million. I understood total attendance was around 850,000. This section definitely needs work.Mzmadmike 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Farrakhan, along with New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and other prominent black Americans marked the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March by holding a second march, the Millions More Movement on October 14, 2005 through October 17, 2005, in Washington."

There is no source for the claim that Sen. Obama was responsible for, or participated in, the Millions More Movement. Sen. Obama is not listed as an organizer in the main Millions More Movement page, so why is he even referenced (without sources) in the sentence?75.51.217.169 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Johnny

Trying to diminish Farrakhan will not work

Everytime i add anything positive about Farrakhan they delete it, well i have four references to him being a key AA leader, and an orator. This is how Farrakhan is know in the world, not only as a leader of NOI, But why i am happy today is because despite all the "groups" against him, he is one of the most respected leaders in our community and nobody will hide that truth from the world or change how Most AA feel about him. i believe it is racist to try to diminish the glory of African American warriors, they did it with X, they did it with Garvey. key to who Farrakhan is should be in the lead. And i will be expanding the lead just like the lead on everyone else. and notice i am using some of the same sources that slander him which admit to his leadership and popularity.--HalaTruth(????) 09:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid POV attributes like "galvanizing" and weasel words like "key leader", especially in the intro. Beit Or 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you have no problem adding it to the ISrael section, so why is it different here. I will change it to leader. Please do not delete it, you dont delete content you improve it. Trying to mask who Mr F is not honest because he is far more than the leader of NOI, and wiki is about truth. He was voted most popular AA last year.--HalaTruth(????) 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in allegations

In 1994, Farrakhan said in a speech: "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man."[19]

This has been added, is that all he said, but it has been added to slander him.So CNN quote part of a speech where is the rest, i heard the speech thats not where he was going with it. And this is the bio of a living person. On many occasions he said Hitler was "Brilliantly evil" but he is speaking about his ablity to group Germany against Europe, not for killing jews, he has always said this, this is why the tag and weasle tag has been added.--HalaTruth(????) 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a notable quote from a reliable source; one can find more reliable sources with this same quote. Your reasons for removal are entirely spurious. Beit Or 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ADL

Some critics allege the ADL willfully exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism, especially among Muslims. The critics also claim that the ADL defines legitimate criticism so narrowly that even moderate analysis of Israel could be categorized as anti-Semitic. not a neutral source and cannot be used to slander someone. like everyone is a communist and a terrorit :Witch hunt --HalaTruth(????) 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just your personal opinion, irrelevant to this article. Beit Or 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it isnt my personal opinion, it is a direct copy and paste, it is a universal critic of the ADL and is very relevant and this source is not Neutral especially in dealing with anti-Zionist. Furthermore it is like quoting any extrem group.--HalaTruth(????) 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me break it down

Perhaps the most provocative aspect of Farrakhan's political philosophy is his alleged anti-Semitism, allegations Farrakhan has denied. (THIS IS A POV "PREHAPS NOT ACCORDING TO ANYONE BUT A SELECT GROUP" Prior to 1984 Farrakhan was known for his anti-white rhetoric but had not singled out Jews. The controversies began during the 1984 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson (with the Nation of Islam providing security). During a discussion with a black reporter, Jackson referred to New York City as "Hymietown". THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTISEMITISM, ONLY SUPPORT FOR JACKSON. So why is it here? He is supporting Jackson so what?

PLease be careful as this is a living person and any negative content must only be added under the hightest threshold. You cannot put rumors, associations, broken statements from sources that are hateful of Farrakhan. He is said to be antisemtic and guess where the sources are coming from? Thats like quoting his magazine against Sharon, what do you think he would say. it is not an xtrm source.--HalaTruth(????) 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at this: Controversial quotes attributed to Farrakhan include:

Farrakhan: "Is the Federal Reserve owned by the government?"

Audience: "No."

What does this have to do with being racist? this is why this section isnt dangerous. Making comments about White people ownership of land in South Africa is not anti-White, PLease just stick to his "antisemitic" statements, those which are clearly alleg, and bring proper sources, not from sites which are obvertly religious or have a political agenda.--HalaTruth(????) 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the most notable things about Farrakhan is the accusation of anti-semitism. None of this is "rumour". Farrakhan was banned from the UK becasuse of his comments. The quotation about Hitler is undisputed. Farrakhan does not deny that he said it, but rather has "explained" what - he claims - he really meant by it. You are simply censoring material on one of the most notable facts about Farrakhan. Paul B 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

he is most notable for all kinds of things with different people. MOst AA dont care about this accusation, it is not discussed. they care about other things you are using weasle words "one of the most notable" is unencyclopedic and a major statement that you know the minds of all of his supports. He got banned from the UK according to all UK black sources because he would fight the oppressor and cause Africans to rise up. and why is the beginning talking about Jesse Jackson, this is original research and i have to add the tag but i would prefer you remove it, I dont see the link to the statments to support for jackson.--HalaTruth(????) 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

u r bringing Or and making a case against him, the solution use another quote. If Jews own Hollywood does it make it racist to say so. SA whites own most of SA, it is a fact. I didnt take off everything only ridic remarks which have nothing to do with the argument. If he is anti-semitic then fair is fair, but dont try to build a case with OR and weasle words and fabricating and compiling all kinds of non-related statements that include the word jew.--HalaTruth(????) 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are talking utter nonsense. I used the word "notable" because it has a specific meaning within Wikipedia. There are no weasel words and no OR. You are just making this up. "All black sources" say he was banned from the UK "because he would fight the oppressor"? You've read them all have you? And what defines a "black source" in your view? It is clearly documented why he was banned. Have you even looked it up? It doesn't matter what you think "most AAs" care about. Your idea about this is not encyclopedic nor is the article about "African American views of Louis Farrakhan as intuited by HalaTruth". Paul B 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I will warn you about wiki policies on Civility policy to other editors. I am glad you see my point. U have just fallen for the same agrument i am against. thanks for jumping in the trap. exactly you cant say things like that. i didnt say anything like that in the article. but to say "he is most notable for speaking blah blah" is no different. How many Black own papers in the UK? okay.--HalaTruth(????) 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You will not cross out my statements. Referring to opinions as nonsense is not the same as attacking a person. This is not an argument, it's just a stream of consciousness. Paul B 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

U r not allowed to violate civility on wiki pedia, be a professional and show non-emotional restraint. I think your arguments are not well supported. If you need clarity on what can and cannot be said i can show you the policy on civility. It is attacking my logic as being nonsensical and thus attacks me as an editor. can we move on and respect why we are here, when you assume that tone, i can be low and return with anger that is why we are suppose to be civil.--HalaTruth(????) 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult to debate with you because your arguments are difficult to decipher. There is no dispute that F has been regularly accused of anti-Semitism. There is no dispute that he made these comments. The stuff about Jackson was probably added to provide context - Farrakhan's own comments arose from the war of words initiated by Jackson's "Hymie" remark. It may not be necessary to add this context, but it's difficult to see what's POV about it. Paul B 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont like the jackson thing, it doesnt belong here. I dont like the source from ADL. I see the "hymie" thing on jacksons page--No problem. He is a big man he said it, he said it. F is targeted for Anti-S. but i dont like an over focus on this. everytime he tries to do anything out comes this 1 thing. And i think (personally) the statment about "who owns what" is not anti-S. bad taste-yes. the rest is valid. I personally know he has issues with Jews, so i am not going to argue against that.--HalaTruth(????) 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

These are just your own evaluations. You may not like something, but when it's notable and well-sourced, it will stay. Beit Or 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil behaviour

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

Rudeness Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap") Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

If someone said you are talking crap how does that make you feel? this is not a valid critic and is weak because it is a blank reply to anything we dont like, without the need for explanation. If ur unclear would you say that to your momma?--HalaTruth(????) 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why an edit war will happen

THis encyclopedia is open to all to contribute, yet some believe they have a greater right to add and delete content. Valid editos are not allowed to add content. When there is no comprimise and everytime i come back here and find valid dispute tags deleted, worthy objections ignored, then my rights as an quality editor are violated. I have said do not add J Jackson and speculating when Mr F became so-called Anti-S, it is OR blatenly so. It is a speculation, there is no direct link. dispite all of this it continues to be added back by 2 editors. well i just took it out again. i am comprimising, but you cannot have a solution when 1 person is doing all the reasoning.--HalaTruth(????) 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see very little "reasoning" here. There is no OR when the context is clear, as I have already explained. Jackson made his Hymie remark. Jackson was criticised. Farakhann made a treatening comment in defence of Jackson. He got called a Black Hitler becasue of it and then made his Hitler comment. It is all clearly linked. There is no reason to remove it. By doing so you make it seem as though F's comments came out of nowhere. It serves no useful purpose. Paul B 09:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

THis is Farrakhan not Jackson, it is or there is no source to show this connection, dont you know you are making a timeline, where is the source to say this is the connection? can you not remove a tag when i am disputing a section?--HalaTruth(????) 09:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Editwarring....

... accomplishes nothing, besides getting stressed and upset. As editors seem not able to find common ground, I have temporarily protected the page. When editors are ready to resume editing, or to challenge the protection, you can place a request at WP:RFPP ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

when there is no signs of balance from other editors see above, no comprimise, no ablity to listen, bend a little. this is why edit wars happen. I have made sign contributions to wiki and the above editor is now telling this seasoned editor i am not making sense. i know there is OR in the section, i am right to put tags there but the bully is removing the tags, and telling me unilaterially that i am wrong and he is right. as if he owns wikipedia. with a bio of a living person it is far better to be safe than sorry and we should be careful when adding negative content. a shopping list of things he said about 1 group of people give undue weight to a man with a very long legacy as more than a antisemit,--HalaTruth(????) 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You made wholesale deletions of undisputed material and turned the page into something unreadable. You didn't even bother to check up on whether the material was factual. You made wild and unsupported claims about what "black sources" say without providing any evidence at all. Paul B 10:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I cut jackson, u knew my issue, you ignored it, u deleted my tags., all of this is uncivil behavior. If i cut OR and dispute a section are you civil when you continue to restore only your work. This is stubborn minded arrogance. Who are you 2 over ride my tags? A shopping list of a conversation, like a film script doesnt belong in an encyclopedia "the crowd replies" "Farrakhan says" this is unprofessional. All of these are valid points. I have created serious content on wiki, tonnes of content on Black history and here u are trivalising my viewpoints. Dont use pro-Israel sources without also using sources which vindicate him, actually uses more neutral sources not ADL and Villagevoice and Jewsih times, what do you think they will say. Look at Desmond tutu page, these same type of sources said he 2 was antisemitic. inablity to reason, and give up ground is why this page is protected. --HalaTruth(????) 10:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Material sourced to rock-solid sources, like CNN, is not original research. Your problem seems to be with the facts rather than with sources. Beit Or 11:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem is clearly outlinned above. The issue is beyond source, show me the proof of the jesse link to antisemitism? it is or. who said saying Jews control the federal reserve is anti-S? Conspiracy theory about 911 is not anti-S neither is his statments. there is no balance in the section. listing a speech is silly esp when the content is not relevant "who own hollywood, who own the federal reserve" so what? "who owns the oil" muslim, is not anti-islamic. esp if it is a fact. the right wing pro-zionist voice is far to dominant. even tutu is anti-semitic. yet i saw your behaviour in racism so i know your def of "facts".--HalaTruth(????) 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dewey, Kant, Hegel?

Sorry to bust up the edit war ya'll seem to be having, but I'd like to request any possible explanation for the included quote about random European philosophers. It's just plain weird, and it'll probably keep me up late at night thinking about what it could possibly mean. I suggest someone delete it or make some effort to explain it. (For the love of God, please explain it.) It's bound to cause similar suffering in others. Seriously, can someone explain it? Please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.127.216 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Farrakhan is just trying to sound intellectual. I don't know about Dewey, but Kant and Hegel certainly did think that black Africans were inferior. Paul B 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That statement is - at best - oversimplified. Kant, for example, considering that "the wild of the jungle" [sic] had the same innate tendency to morality and goodness, as, say, a Prussian of the 18th century. The "wild man" just wasn't able to realise it in a intellectual way, due to his social circumstances. And while Hegel did write some things about the history of Africa, he also did a turn-around when Haiti was proclaimed independent. Please refer to the talk pages of the two philosophers. Cheers! Melpomenon (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Description of Felix Mendelssohn is misleading

The article describes Felix Mendelssohn as a "Jewish convert to Christianity composer." Despite being an inelegant sentence on its own, this is does not completely describe Mendelssohn's religion. At around age 7, Mendelssohn's father converted to Lutheranism and had his children baptised as such. The fact that Mendelssohn was born Jewish is often brought up when the Farrakhan performances are discussed, but it should be noted that neither the composer nor historians label him a Jewish or Christian composer (in fact, very very few composers are known by their religious affiliations). This issue of Mendelssohn as a Jewish convert was manufactured for the Farrakhan discussion and should be noted as such. -- Sstrader 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The religious reference is not only misleading but gratuitous.--Mantanmoreland 14:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category to add...

Whenever this article is available for editing, would someone please add Category:Charismatic religious leaders? He is already described as charismatic in the article, and has been described as such by many sources...I'll list a few of them here:

BBC -- "He supports African-Americans having their own nation and is regarded as one of the most controversial and charismatic African-Americans alive." -- "In this period of testing, you can prove to the world that the Nation of Islam is more than the charisma, eloquence and personality of Louis Farrakhan," he said. [20]

NY Times -- "Louis Farrakhan, the departing leader of the Nation of Islam, gave what was billed as his last major public address here on Sunday, with his extended illness throwing into sharp focus the question of whether the group will shift toward more mainstream Islamic teachings to survive once it loses its central charismatic figure." -- "But Ishmael Muhammad responds that the era of charismatic leaders is over — that one main goal of the Nation is teaching people to be self-sufficient, particularly in their relationship to God." [21]

Washington Post -- "Farrakhan, 73, recently relinquished his duties and turned control over to an executive panel of trusted lieutenants, exhorting them to move the Nation of Islam forward and prove that it is more than the charisma and influence of one man." -- "Others outside the organization wondered whether it could last without Farrakhan's charismatic influence." [22]

--WassermannNYC 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources indicate that he is charismatic in the Weberian sense of the word which differs significantly from the common, loose usage of the word charisma. Andries 14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing Link to Interview Transcript

In 1998, former The Wall Street Journal editor Jude Wanniski attempted to foster dialogue between Farrakhan and his critics. He arranged for Farrakhan to be interviewed by reporter Jeffrey Goldberg who had written for the Jewish weekly, The Forward and The New York Times. Since the extensive interview was never published in either publication, Wanniski decided to post the transcript on his website in the context of a memo of Senator Joseph Lieberman. The following are links to the interview, parts one, two and three:

Why is the link missing?

216.226.231.132 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Farahkhn banned from the UN

Anyone have links to this? 69.244.153.46 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, can someone add thie to the links as he's mentioned several times in the article.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy

POV cats

POV cats were removed. Please do not add them back without justification. Dfalao 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone who says that "Jews are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality, [and] Zionists have manipulated Bush and blah, blah, blah" is an obvious anti-Semite. I have restored the cats as they are very accurate. -- Karl Meier 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your insufficiently sourced segment is unfair and highly misleading. The fact is that Farrakhan's Jewish biographer has defeneded Farrakhan repeatedly [23]. Farrakhan has strongly denounced bigotry and specifically stated that he hates neither white people nor Jews [24]. He has however spoken out against business owners who, in his mind, take advantage of the difficult socio-economic position of some urban African-Americans. He has stressed that his rejection of such individuals is unrelated to matters of race or ethnicity. In fact, he has even claimed that some of these business owners are Palestinian Arabs and called those specific individuals bloodsuckers [25]. Wikipedia does not place Farrakhan in an Arab-hating category, and nor should he be singled out as an anti-Semite by Wikipedia. Some people think he's an anti-Semite and the article should mention that, but placing Farrakhan in POV categories is simply unacceptable. Dfalao 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone that believe that "the Jews setup the IRS and the FBI" and call Adolf Hitler "a very great man" is an obvious anti-Semite, so there is nothing biased about including him in that category. As for his comments about other non-Jewish races and people, that only prove that the man the article discuss is not only an anti-Semite but also a racist in general. I don't mind if a category is added that reflect that reality too. -- Karl Meier 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hitler quote is taken out of context. Farrakhan specifically denounced Hitler as "evil" and a "wicked killer" but said that he was "great" in the sense of being a major figure in history. [26] Even to the sceptic this evidence establishes reasonable doubt to the extent that Farrakhan must not be placed in controversial categories. Dfalao 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The category only means there is a connection between Louis Farrakhan and antisemitism. There is just too much criticism of him saying he is an antisemite for the category not to be there.--sefringle^Talk 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle has it right: there used to be an Anti-semitic people category,which was contentious. This category hsouldn't be, though. It just refers to people who are widely associated with the subject, positively or negatively, truly or no. IronDuke 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

African American Muslims & Sudan

The recent situation in Sudan where ethnic Arab Muslims were killing Africans was recently highlighted in the Media. I'd like to know how AFAm's feel about this? Gazh 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no african american who can speak for all of us. African Americans are a race, not a religion, cult, or social group who shares the same belief. How we feel about Islam, Nation of Islam, Darfur, etc. will be different for every person. Just like there is no set belief for all white people there is no set belief for all blacks either. As for me, I think they Arab muslims who are killing the Africans are racists and I think they are horrible people. I view them in a similar way as I view the nazis and the KKK; as racists. Their actions may be somewhat different, but they still kill based on ethnic lines. I don't know if this answers your question.-Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also say, in addition to being similar to the Nazis and the KKK, they are also similar to the racist South Africans and Israelis. Padishah5000 09:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not exactly accurate that ethnic arab muslims are killing Africans, since most of the arab muslims are actually black or mixed black and arab. so it is more about arabs warring against non arabs.Muntuwandi 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. Some are, most do not identify as black.--Sefringle^Talk 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Omar el-Béchir.jpg

Sudanese arab president Omar al-Bashir

Nope. Most would be considered black in the U.S. Padishah5000 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, i worded the question wrong i meant how do AFAM Muslims feel about the tragedies in Sudan. Gazh 09:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Its a complicated question because AFAMs are mainstream sunni muslims and also separately there are the Nation of Islam AFAMs. In sudan both sides are also predominantly black or mixed black and arab. the northern blacks are arabized in language and culture and are politically the dominant faction. Whereas the southern blacks are have retained African culture, language and religion and have not mixed with Arabs. some are christian. See Demographics of Sudan

Most african americans such as Charles Rangel support the "black africans" because they are the oppressed group, but beyond that it appears now that it is no different in character to any other conflict, for example the sunni-shia conflict in Iraq.

Groups like the NOI are not acknowledged by mainstream muslims as fellow muslims. Here are a few links from the final call magazine related to darfur.

• Sudanese president answers questions on Darfur
• more articles

Muntuwandi 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, Thanks for the links, i will read them now. My main question (or thinking) is the conflict that AFAMs face between Race and religion in regards to such a situation. I understand that all Muslims cannot condone such a conflict.

However i would add that Sudan Muslims (in my experience) do not consier themselves 'black'. Gazh 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blackness is a social construct, though some may not consider themselves black, if they were to walk into a restaurant in the US, they would. We have been having the same debate on the Talk:Black_people#Sadat_picture about the blackness of Anwar Sadat since his mother was from Sudan.

“ “We’re all Africans. We’re all Black.” ”

Omar al-Bashir

Muntuwandi 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right Muntuwandi. Would it be correct to assume you are both AFAM and Muslim ? Gazh 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We see what we want to see or what suits us at any given time. Does that photo look like an Arab? I never heard an native Ethiopian or Masai, or Dinka say i am a black person in their own history, If they go to America or Uk yes, if they refer to black people in a political sense. But people say i am fulani, i am Amhara, we are Africans, not black. And Bashir even said it!!! but still this Arab thing goes around--why, to divide and conquere, keep falling for it. At Gazh very few Ethiopian, Somali, Fulani, Masai, Hausa, San, call themselves black, stop inforcing a white created social contruction born out of enslavement on self-determined people, try and understand culture in context--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah i think you have either misundertood my point or simply overanalysed it, yes 'black' is a social construct but you cannot deny that it's prevelance in American mainstream society is enforced and even proudly promoted by AFAM's themselves, being 'black' in the US for example is completely different from being 'black' in the UK, as you failed to point out. The question i was asking (i will try to re-word again) is that how do AFAM's who identify equally with being black in America as well as being a Muslim, deal with (or feel about) the conflicting emotions that such a subject would bring about, obviously alot of African Americans would not like what is being done in Sudan to 'African' people, and when those things are being done by Muslims (another group that such individuals i am asking can identify with). Gazh 18:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an intresting question, but we shouldnt discuss it here, but what the heck. Ask yourself how did Christian AFrican Americans (AA) feel when 4 million died in the Congo. Why would religion be a factor. Somali has a 100% Muslim so is Darfur why is religion the issue? All over the world people kill each other, but African American Muslims should be concerned because of Africa, so should the Christians. This 'Other' Group is a lie as Farrakhan explained. Hutu and Tutsi, same thing again. The tutsi's would be called 'Arab' in Sudan.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The leader of African-American Muslims outside the Nation of Islam?

The second sentence of this article currently claims that "Farrakhan is the leader of African-American Muslims inside and outside the Nation of Islam."

I don't take issue with the idea that Farrakhan is the leader of those inside the Nation of Islam. However, given that most Muslims (outside the Nation of Islam) do not accept that members of the Nation of Islam are even Muslim, the idea that Farrakhan is the leader of African-American Muslims outside the Nation of Islam appears both absurd and offensive. (He might consider himself their leader, but if they don't, then he really isn't!)

Nevertheless, given that I'm neither Muslim nor African-American (or even African or American) I didn't feel qualified to actually remove this claim. Hopefully, someone else will... Xander Llewelyn 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this claim is not supported by the reference articles (although the second one no longer seems to be online). A leader? Maybe. The leader? I'd say certainly not... Xander Llewelyn 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence has been taken out. I think something needs to be said here about his public importance beyond the NoI. Can we say that he is an advocate of what he sees as the interests of black people? How about that he is a critic of American society? Steve Dufour 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote a sentence on this. I'm sure it can be improved. Steve Dufour 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic supremacy category?

I removed this because I didn't see anything in the article that said he thought that one ethnic group should be supreme over any other. If this is something he advocates then explain that in the article please. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I reread the article and still don't see anything about this so I will remove the category again. Steve Dufour 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this[27] source:

"White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet."

"The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust. They thought they could trust in Hitler, and they helped him get the Third Reich on the road."

I believe these two quotes prove he believed blacks were superior to the ethnic groups of white people and Jews. Yahel Guhan 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he is a racist, so I left that tag in. However he does not seem to be saying that one ethnic group should rule over another, and I think that is what "ethnic supremacy" means. Steve Dufour 22:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence is contradictory

If Farrakhan is the National Representative of Elijah Muhammad, how can Farrakhan also be the head of the Nation of Islam? I see this as a misguided attempt to label Farrakhan's position. I'm going to adjust the sentence. This is brought into further question in the section about Farrakhan's "vision-like experience during the 1980's, during which Farrakhan claims to have received instructions from Elijah Muhammad.Rag-time4 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Million Man March - Barak Obama

Considering the attempts at "swiftboating" Obama via associations with Farrakhan, I think Obama should only be mentioned in this article IF there is a source too. Too many voting sheep out there. Unfortunately "million man march" and "Barak Obama" googles up several thousand links, not because there is a connection but because the black sites googled up offer informations on both topics. And who will have a chance to check more than a few? Admittedly I am suspicious of anyone who wants to have this information in this article NOW. Too much activities in this context already. LeaNder (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago

I was surprised Obama's name was not mentioned in this article. There are numerous reports by credible sources that Louis Farrakhan did indeed endorse Obama, I even saw this on CNN a couple weeks ago.

If the John Hagee article has McCain's endorsement on there. Then this article should have Obama's endorsement as well.

Source[28]128.83.144.235 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Louis Farrakan has endorsed Obama and I here are 3 notable sources Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and ABC). It is me i think (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement and said he was proud to have it. Such indications of favor from a prominent politician are relevant to Hagee's article. Similar indications from Obama would be relevant to Farrakhan's article but they would have to be cited to a reliable source. JamesMLane t c 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kenwood?

I've walked by his home when I lived in Chicago and I could have sworn that he lived in Hyde Park, not Kenwood (Kenwood is just north of Hyde Park). Do we have a source for where he lives? CelticLabyrinth (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

April 14, 1972

Louis Farrakhan was the leader of the Mosque in Harlem in which a false 911 call lured 4 New York City Police Officers into an ambush. Patrolman Phillip Cardillo was subsequently murdered by NOI soldiers within the Mosque. Farrakhan hindered the investigation by using the incident to fuel the racial tensions at the time rather than allow NYPD Detectives to investigate the incident and crime scene.

There are numerous legitimate news sourced that can be cited or referenced merely by searching the date, or Ptl. Cardillo's name. The book 'Circle of Six' was written by a Detective that was on the scene and ultimately investigated the shooting.

206.212.184.44 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Remember Phil Cardillo

Jewish distributors section

There are a couple of problems with this section. First, the section heading suggests that the distributors pulling out of the arrangement were Jewish - the NYT article does not support this. Second, the section implies that Johnson & Johnson's decision blocked the project - however the NYT article quotes one of the organisers of the programme saying that Johnson's withdrawal was not a major setback. LeContexte (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag?

I'm not sure if there ever was a neutrality dispute tag prefacing the article, but as it looks like the article's neutrality is still very much in dispute, maybe we could get that back up? Wchutlknbout (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Relationship to Jeremiah Wright"

I deleted this section because it was entirely irrelevant and unsubstantiated.

The section was as follows:

Relationship to Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is the minister for Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Farrakhan, calling him a man who "truly epitomized greatness." Musicologism (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article in the Jerusalem Post says Farrakhan is a Holocaust denier. "Farrakhan also raised doubts about the "veracity" of the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust and questioned European laws against Holocaust denial." Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I have tagged some of the controversy sections as irrelevant on the basis that "controversy" doesn't simply mean something that an editor finds disagreeable. There should be reliable sources about people taking issue with what Farrakhan said or did. WillOakland (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semite? I think not.

Muslims in the NOI believe that Fard Muhammad, who they believe is Allah, had a white mother. So if their god is a semite, how can they be anti-semites?-AwesomePeopleMakeClay (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Black Hitler"

The first paragraph is misleading, or at least not properly cited. citation # 40 refers to death threats against Jackson, but in relation to his 1984 presidential campaign, not his pejorative comments. I recommend a better citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.21.189 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The long "Hitler was a very great man" quote is also incorrectly cited. I don't know if it's an accurate quote, but both of the citations contain the "Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers" part, but nothing about raising Germany up. Mlleangelique (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, I've found a reference for the quote and cleaned it up a bit. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"White God"?

Hi - I've never done any editing on Wikipedia and don't know how, but obviously the section "White God" has to be some kind of vandalism. 170.20.11.116 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC) amy

Done and thanks for pointing it out :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Any time! Your prompt and courteous response has encouraged me to report anything else untoward I might find.  :) 170.20.11.116 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)amy

Presidential election 2008

Why isn't the fact that he donated money to Barack Obama during his election in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanForrest101 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it yet with a ref ? :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I see the editor has been blocked - anyone else have the necessary info to add it? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nation of Islam != Muslim

From everything I've been able to find, and trying my best not to leave huge boot prints on WP:OR, I have to contend that the Nation of Islam is a Muslim sect in name only, in that it applies the name Allah to the concept of a Supreme Deity. Considering that the Nation of Islam considers Allah to be manifest in the person of its founder, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, most adherents of the Muslim religion would consider Nation of Islam to be blasphemous at best.

Comments? Concerns? Operators are standing by, this is a free call... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia software

My edits are not BLP and not vandalism. I linked my edits with reference. --93.82.8.124 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

One very poor reference replaced detailed cited text, which was deleted for no discernable reason. Your own addition was barely intelligible. You also gave no edit summary. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor reference? That´s laughable. There is a video with Farrakhan himself speaking. I´m going to revert once more, because Wikipedia is out of order, with the mob ruling over it. --93.82.8.124 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are making no sense. You removed detailed cited content and replaced it with an almost meaningless quotation which was summarised as a barely literate precis. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are making no sense. Because that´s what you writing is no argument for WP:Edits. --93.82.8.124 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? Am I supposed to understand this? You are not replying to the substantive points. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are in denial of your addiction to Wikipedia, due to that you can´t understand plain english. Also you are acting like Wikipedia:OWN. --93.82.8.124 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot continually revert contrary to consensus. You are limited to three reverts per WP:3RR. You are not replying to the main issues: that you are deleting detailed cited content; that you are replacing it with something trivial (so he loves Obama's family? What does that tell us? Nothing.). BTW, the sentence "Because that´s what you writing is no argument for WP:Edits" is not plain English. It's ungrammatical. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not "ungrammatical" : Wikipedia:EDITS --93.82.8.124 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Paul Barlow is correct, please cease deleting sourced content. What you want to add seems not notable to me, but we can discuss that, but the deletions are completely inappropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to delete that content. Mutinus (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

A couple of IP editors have deleted some sourced material from the controversy section. My thought is that the material appears to be well sourced, and should remain, but it's placement and presentation may be problematic. Does anyone care to weigh in on this? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Neturei Karta section?

There was a section titled "Neturei Karta" that was under the "Antisemitism" section. But the source (there was only one) had no mention of antisemitism or bigotry towards Jews. So I removed the section. I suppose the section could belong in this article, but not under the Antisemitism rubric. On the other hand, if it were re-inserted as its own section, it would be best to get some secondary sources that comment on the relationship between NK and LF ... if no such sources exist, perhaps the NK material is not significant enough. --Noleander (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the NK material should not be in if it only has a "letter to the editor" to support it as a source. Let's get serious about using better sources and cites here.Parkwells (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mixed up section

• In the 1950s, Walcott started his professional music career by recording several calypso albums as a singer under the name, "The Charmer." He also performed on tour. After converting to Islam, Elijah Muhammad replaced his "X" with the "holy name," Farrakhan, an Arabic name meaning 'charmer'. In February 1955, using part of his middle name, Eugene, "Calypso Gene" was headlining a show in Chicago, Illinois entitled "Calypso Follies." One of his songs was on the top 100 Billboard Chart for five years in a row. There he first came in contact with the teachings of the Nation of Islam (NOI) through Rodney Smith, a friend, and saxophonist from Boston, Massachusetts. Walcott and his wife, Betty who were invited by Smith to the Nation of Islam's annual Saviours' Day address by Elijah Muhammad decided to attend. Prior to going to Saviour's Day, due to then-Minister Malcolm X's unbelievable height of popularity in the media, Walcott had never even heard about Elijah Muhammad. Like most outside of the Nation of Islam, Walcott thought that Malcolm X was the leader of the Nation of Islam. Saviour's Day is a Nation of Islam holiday that commemorates Master Wallace Fard Muhammad's birth on February 26, 1877. Although there has been much controversy as to who the NOI founder actually was, it has been proven that "Master" Wallace Fard Muhammad was indeed an actual person, and believed by Nation of Islam members to be Allah in person. He is considered the long-awaited Mahdi spoken of in the Holy Qur'an and Messiah of the Bible to free the Asiatic Blackman & Blackwoman here in the "Hells of North America," or "Wilderness of North America."

I can't tell if this is about Farrakhan's music career, how he meet NOI, or who the "real founder" of NOI was. Can we rewrite this, or trim it a bit? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan has Portuguese-Jewish heritage

There's been several books written about Farrakhan's Portuguese-Jewish heritage and I'm surprise that it's not mentioned here. Farrakhan has never hide he's Portuguese-Jewish heritage and he clearly states that in many of his interviews.

Here's some links about Portuguese-Jewish heritage:

• Farrakhan, religion and spiritual ideas

• Minister Farrakhan Speaks to Jamaica at the 0:41 mark Farrakhan said his mother told him that his grandfather was Portuguese.

• The Farrakhan Factor: African-American Writers on Leadership, ... - Page 22

• Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan claims Jewish ancestry

• Farrakhan Talks to the Jews

FireFire007 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not all of those are R.S for a living person bio, see the rules. I am sure others can comment on the validity of the sources. And you can put them through the reliable source notice board. I have checked a few and it doesnt hold up , even if he said it he says "He might be Portuguese and he might be Jewish" doesn't qualify as a fact --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The best you can say with those sources is that Farrakhan believes he is of Portuguese-Jewish descent, or that he professes to be of Portuguese-Jewish descent. None of them is a reliable source to make a statement of fact in a biography of a living person. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A similar issue has come up with porn stars who profess to be of a certain faith. We should be highly suspicious of unsupported self-claims where the claimant has an incentive to claim to be part of a religion or ethnicity.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

so let's go with "Farrakhan says that he is of Jewish and Portuguese lineage" Soosim (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The factoid that Farrakhan considers himself to have Portuguese-Jewish ancestry may not be important enough to mention. Somebody who is familiar with the subject should review WP:Undue weight. Is it being mentioned here only to help Farrakhan refute criticism that he is antisemitic? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

malik - he didn't say he was jewish. you know that argument as well as anyone. he only said he is of jewish lineage. and therefore, he can still be anti-semitic. and can't a full-fledged jew be anti-semitic too? Soosim (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going to say that --how many Jews are accused of this? Noam Chomsky, Mrs Klein, the list is pretty long. In any event I am no fan of a term like antisemitism it is pure politics. And if Farrakhan was so worried about it I think by now he would have just changed his message not his lineage . Clearly he said it to bridge the gap and create ears that might hear what he is actually saying.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, so do we all agree (malik?) - RS statements by louis himself. any other comments? Soosim (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not notable and should not be included. I am sure others may agree but for different reasons. Plus Bio standards require higher secondary reference quality.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jamaica being entirely Roman Catholic, his father was most likely Catholic before emigrating.69.179.107.207 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal life section

I don't have any great interest in Louis Farrakhan and only came to the article because of a headline that I recently saw about him. I was skimming through the article and found the personal life section rather confusingly worded. Right now it reads:

Wolcott was married to Betsy Ross while he was in college. (She later took the name Khadijah Farrakhan). She still lived in Boston, Massachusetts, and was pregnant with their child. Due to complications from the pregnancy, Wolcott dropped out after completing his junior year of college to devote time to her and their child.

My confusion is mostly to do with the wording of the last two sentences. Is it just me or is this poorly worded and unclear? For instance, the sentence that starts "She still lived..." doesn't end with a phrase such as "...when such and such happened". Dismas|^(talk) 06:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me. His wife stayed in Boston while he was at college. He dropped out to look after her when the pregnancy became a problem. You could change the wording to "Pregnant with their child, she stayed in Boston" or some such. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Not bias whatsoever. How and why does this belong here exactly. The funniest part is mentioning they have a cute little Top 10 antisemitic slurs of that year" list. It's about time for this site to start quoting Black Entertainment Television as a legitimate political source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.173.36 (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Source on three NOI shooters

There was a "citation needed" sticker tied to the statement about the three shooters. I believe the NY Times article I cited passes muster and provides the needed factual documentation. Liam Patrick (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cited sources are incomplete

There are several citations in the Malcolm X's death section that simply list the last name of authors who are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, namely:

• Rickford, pp. 437, 492–495.
• Evanzz, pp. 298–299.
• Kondo, pp. 182–183, 193–194.
• Marable, p. 305.
• Rickford, pp. 436–439, 492–495.
• Rickford, p. 492.

Does anyone else see these names or their related works mentioned at any other point in the article? Perhaps we might try to verify these sources... Ender and Peter 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The citations to the books are given in full at Malcolm X#Works cited. Somebody copied the footnotes and forgot to copy the bibliographic information. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism/controversy

The fact that Louis Farrakhan disputes criticisms of himself should not be included in the article. Otherwise we would need to include this self-disavowal in all bibliographical entries with criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.77.179 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeating what has been said here before: Anything added to the criticism and controversy section needs to include an explanation, with sources, of who objected to Farrakhan's words/actions. Without that, the addition merely promotes the editor's point of view that they are controversial, and the material should be removed. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Birth name

Currently this says he was born with a different last name than either of his parents had. It might be a good idea to explain why this is the case. 85.157.76.57 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his parents split up before he was born. He was brought up as the son of Louis Wolcott, his mother's partner after her split with Clark. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a good source for that? I think I read that somewhere as well. Liam Patrick (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source on this. It's been almost a year now. I think we really need to come up with something or drop this point. Liam Patrick (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Word salad

This awesome passage currently appears in the article:

After Malcolm X left the NOI because of the prophet's adultery, and hajj, an Arabic word meaning pilgrimage, to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, several "revolving ministers," meaning ministers who took turns preaching until an official minister was secured at a particular temple, were used at Muhammad's Temple of Islam No. 7 in Harlem. This occurred before and after Malcolm's death.

Try as I might, I have absolutely no idea what this is saying. There are seven commas in that first sentence alone. As much as I want to clean this up, I can't make heads or tails out of it. Can someone help me out here? 12.229.42.196 (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Added categories: Antisemitism, Racism etc.

I've added a few categories that are missing and are essential in this article:

• Category:Conspiracy theorists
• Category:Antisemitism in the United States
• Category:Holocaust deniers
• Category:Racism in the United States
• Category:Anti-white racism

All of these categories must be mentioned as mr. Farrakhan is openly antisemitic and racist against White people as well. Why mr. David Duke is clearly labelled as a racist, while mr. Farrakhan is not? 192.162.150.105 (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Louis Farrakhan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131808460300/http://www.noi.org/statements/transcript_891024.htm to http://www.noi.org/statements/transcript_891024.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150414182025/http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2197.shtml to http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2197.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129030950/http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane929 to http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane929
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150414182018/http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2931.shtml to http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2931.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129081725/http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3220.shtml to http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3220.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nation of Islam is not ISLAM

Why is his religion listed as "Islam"? This is indeed a rookie mistake. You cannnot claim this man is a leader of "The Nation of Islam" which is neither a sect or a culture related to Islam, except by name. Specifically to mention that Islam is not primarily a religion of a certain creed, colour or race which is a vast difference to the African-American based themes in "The Nation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccran (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)2A00:23C5:88CF:2D00:DE6:B00F:CB0A:2A58 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

New categories such as anti-Catholicism, anti-Masonry, conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers.

All of those categories must be mentioned because Mr. Farrakhan is openly antisemitic, anti-catholic and racist against White people as well. Why Mr. David Duke is clearly labelled as a racist, while Mr. Farrakhan is not? It makes no sense at all to say he isn't a racist when he clearly is. He also a conspiracy theorist because he believes that for example Ebola was invented by whites as a way to kill off black people or Jews controlled the slave trade. He also makes very antisemitic interpretations on the holocaust by saying that Jews financed Hitler and the Nazis and further more. 2601:583:C205:19D0:8F1:DED4:DF3D:FE8B (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Tom Jones

As I wrote on your talk page yesterday, please read WP:CAT#Articles. It should be clear from information in the article why it was placed in each category. That isn't the case with the categories you've been adding to various articles on Wikipedia. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Support for Dianetics?

I see the last paragraph of the introduction ties Mr. Farrakhan to Scientology, but has no documentation in the way of a footnote. Since this is, whether true or not, both noteworthy and odd, I think documentation is in order. --Haruo (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-white theology

Anti-white theology does not equate to "anti-white racism". Are there RS that describe LF as an "anti-white racist"? I think the article should be specific with the terminology when applying potentially inflammatory labels, especially for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

He's described as pushing an anti-white theology in the lead. The "Criticism and controversy" section says he's described as a racist. Do you really need the exact phrase "anti-white racist" together in the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The category on "Anti-white racism" appears to be a dubious one, even more so than "Black supremacist" :-). There's no article with this name, apart from a redirect which I believe could safely be deleted (my suggestion here).

I don't see an issue with describing anyone a racist or anti-white theologist, or whatever the RS say, but the "anti-white racist" is a dubious descriptor, just judging by a lack of a wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

PS -- these categories were added by an IP with an apparent agenda: Added categories above. I removed the "conspiracy theorist" for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw a video on Facebook of Farrakhan advocating for segregation.. how is this man not regarded as a racist? If a white man does the same kind of action he's shot down immediately. Crazy... ThePlane11 (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, or how it's relevant to the categorization of this article. This page is intended for discussion of ways to improve this encyclopedia article, not general discussion of Louis Farrakhan. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Louis Farrakhan. 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/20060906210816/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~new_orleans/report/CH_7.pdf to http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~new_orleans/report/CH_7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129041352/http://noiatlanta.org/?p=21 to http://noiatlanta.org/?p=21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405064329/http://www.sd2007.com/webcast/ to http://www.sd2007.com/webcast/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819173056/http://www.noi.org/statements/rift/default.htm to http://www.noi.org/statements/rift/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100411200443/http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_jews.asp to http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_jews.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129045308/http://www.emtecfilms.com/page13/page13.html to http://www.emtecfilms.com/page13/page13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306075844/http://openvault.wgbh.org/series/Say Brother/ to http://openvault.wgbh.org/series/Say Brother/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411141313/http://www.ebonyawakening.org/content/2006 Tribute.pdf to http://www.ebonyawakening.org/content/2006 Tribute.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) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Louis Farrakhan. 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/20101201022052/http://articles.cnn.com/2007-03-09/us/btsc.lemon_1_louis-farrakhan-nation-of-islam-leader-million-man-march?_s=PM:US to http://articles.cnn.com/2007-03-09/us/btsc.lemon_1_louis-farrakhan-nation-of-islam-leader-million-man-march?_s=PM:US
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105093720/http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781 to http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821221555/http://openvault.wgbh.org/saybrother/MLA001018/index.html: to http://openvault.wgbh.org/saybrother/MLA001018/index.html:
• Added archive https://archive.is/20061011064232/http://www.noi.org/statements/transcript_04-02-2002.htm to http://www.noi.org/statements/transcript_04-02-2002.htm

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) 22:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

change:

The New York Times music critic Bernard Holland reported that Farrakhan's performance was somewhat flawed due to years of neglect "nonetheless Mr. Farrakhan's sound is that of the authentic player. It is wide, deep and full of the energy that makes the violin gleam.

to:

The New York Times music critic Bernard Holland reported that Farrakhan's performance was somewhat flawed due to years of neglect, but "nonetheless Mr. Farrakhan's sound is that of the authentic player. It is wide, deep and full of the energy that makes the violin gleam. West5414 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

role in the e/w hip hop rivalry

there is no mention that i can see of Minister Farrakhan's peace summits. that could be added if anyone wants to add some balance to this. 173.87.170.212 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• On September 22, 1996, a peace summit was convened at Mosque Maryam by Louis Farrakhan in the wake of the murder of Tupac Shakur, and another after the shooting of Biggie Smalls. Minister Farrakhan continues these summits, which have been held since the 1980s, where he calls for peace.

References

This may facilitate the consideration. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's double standards

Why does Wikipedia bluntly and accurately describe David Duke as a "American white supremacist, activist, and white nationalist politician, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier" in the first sentence of his article but strategically hides Louis Farrakhan's black supremacism and anti-Semitism behind weasel words? Why does Wikipedia treat Muslim and black anti-Semites much more leniently than people of other religions and races? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poweryokel (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you @Poweryokel:. Farrakhan is acknowledged as a black supremacist later in the article, and sources describe Farrakhan as a black supremacist. If there's no objection, I will go ahead and update the lede to correctly summarize the article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Might suggest replacing "African-American activist" with Black Nationalist given the solid links. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support this, although given his rhetoric in the SPLC source, it would also be accurate to state that he has been called a "black supremacist" or "preaches a doctrine of black supremacy" or similar language. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I would as well, but given this is a BLP, let's play it safe(r). I made the change. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably a good idea! Thanks for the update. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hard to deny that Duke was all those things, Poweryokel, and that with him being a Nazi and all those things are sort of the most immediate things that matter to his biography. It's a matter of balance, so try to keep the false equivalencies out of here. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Given Farrakhan's views on racial separation [29], Black superiority as the 'original people' and Whites as "devils"[30]; it is not an undo comparison in some ways. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The initial complaint focused on antisemitism. I'm not objecting to your article edit; I am objecting to the ever-tiresome false equivalencies. Mind you, I came here from the CNN talk page, where someone is arguing that because CNN made a few errors the article lead should mirror that of FOX News. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not at all what I am arguing for the record, Drmies. Unless you are talking about someone else, in which case I apologize! There have been so many comments there. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews, that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's the wicked Jews, false Jews, that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!" -Farrakhan, 2006 [31] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Come on Gilmore, you know what is going on. Antisemitism isn't his bread and butter like it is for Duke and his ilk. It's a matter of balance. I happen to know of a famous person who is also a hardcore misogynist, yet the first sentence in his biography shouldn't say that, at least not yet. Same here. I am not arguing we should keep it out, but we should be careful with what we're putting in the first sentence(s). Mr. Plainview, I was referring to the initial complaint, made by an editor who drove by and dropped this here. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thus only Black Nationalist was added in the lede, for that is Farrakhan's major social agenda as a black-separatist and activist. Considering the hate, homophobia, antisemitism and the rest; flow from this goal, almost as a by-product as with other racial supremacist groups and leaders. Comparisons to Duke off, and a better comparison would have been Richard Girnt Butler with the Church of Jesus Christ–Christian, and note that antisemitic is not mention in the lede of these either, this was part of my reasoning to leave it out here. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Even Adolf Hitler doesn't have his anti-semitism mentioned until the second paragraph. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The first line should read "Louis Farrakhan Sr. ... is an American religious leader, racist, black nationalist, activist, and social commentator."

He called Jews "termites" on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LouisFarrakhan/status/1052304476923719680/video/1 Yurivict (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

What? He clearly said that he was anti-termite, not anti-Semite. I'm also anti-termite; while I like the mounds made by mound-building termites, I wouldn't want termites in my bed. Do you want termites in your house? wumbolo ^^^ 08:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Of COURSE he denied being an anti-Semite! No one would openly admit something like that. But time and again he has made extremely racist comments about the Jewish people. This latest comment is just him comparing Jews to termites. Please tell me that you were joking and that you don't seriously condone his comments. Shui Yuena (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You should a secondary source analyzing this as opposed to quoting the subject and drawing your own conclusions (WP:OR, WP:FRIND) - however these exist - [32], [33].Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 November 2018

I would like to add the recent incidence in which Louis Farrakhan led "death to America" chants, in the controversy and criticism segment of the article, as described in the following news item.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/farrakhan-chants-death-to-america-in-iran Berzerker king (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Full suggested text please. Because this edit you made about the incident [34] isn't acceptable. Doug Weller talk 06:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, you were being friendly in considering those edits to have been made in good faith. I am not so sure. Berzerker king, we are not a forum where you can vent opinions that are only thinly "referenced" with a news link. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Drmies that is just your opinion that I am not making justifiable edits. I can have the same aspersions about your ability to make justified edits.

I think it is you who is working outside of "good faith" when you say that news links which I reference are thin or that they need to be put in double quotes to raise doubts about the them being a reference in the first place. Please let me know if you are disputing that Farakkhan made that statement. If you are disputing then let me know what you think of it, and if you are not disputing it, then I think you owe me an explanation why you are casting doubts about me citing that news as reference.

--Berzerker king (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Doug Weller,

As asked by you, I would like to add a section "Anti americanism" to the section "Criticism and controversy"

On 5th Nov'2018, during a solidarity trip to Iran, Louis Farrakhan led chants of "Death to America" . His leading the chants of "death to America" in Iran is in line with the policy / ideology of the ruling theocracy of Iran and can be seen as his endorsement of the Iranian theocracy in its fight against United States of America.

Citation for the incident is also given in the proposed edit. Please let me know how we can update the article with this edit. Thanks

--Berzerker king (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi @Doug Weller:,

Please let me know if you are fine with the proposed changes or not. I have given the citation / source for the edit. Please share whether you find the proposed edit to be factually accurate or not.

Thanks.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. wumbolo ^^^ 21:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I have provided a reliable source "https://www.foxnews.com/world/farrakhan-chants-death-to-america-in-iran". If you think that this website is not reliable please say so explicitly.--Berzerker king (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As multiple editors have disagreed with you above, you should provide more references to demonstrate that it is WP:DUE. wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you close with "not a reliable source" that is not the same as "not DUE?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you also notice the original research? I agree that we shouldn't be adding every bad thing this guy does. Particularly not to further what seems to be an agenda. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about the specific close reason for the request, not the general conversation. I agree we shouldn't be adding everything negative, unless it's newsworthy and noteworthy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:I strongly disagree with what you said above "I agree that we shouldn't be adding every bad thing this guy does". It is absolutely imperetive that you be objective and not biased. Showing a desire to present Louis Farrakhan in good light or to prevent facts from being put up on the page simply because it shows him in bad light, shows bias. I demand that you either state explicitly if you are disputing the fact, or that if you are not disputing the fact that Louis Farrakhan led chants of "Death to America" then you allow for the edit to be done to the page. --Berzerker king (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Berzerker king, I recommend that you read WP:BLP and WP:DUE, to which several editors referred above. Despite what you believe is "absolutely imperetive [sic]", this is intended to be an encyclopedia article, not a litany of things Farrakhan has done that have made white people turn red with (out)rage. And if you think you have the right to "demand" anything of anybody on the internet, I think you're in for a rude awakening. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ironic considering I told him on his talk page that I needed answers to some questions: "You say that CNN routinely has stories calling Trump a Nazi. As I've said elsewhere, all I can find on CNN is Trump Jr. saying the Democrats are like Nazis. I see that an editor has commented on your edit request at Talk:Louis Farrakhan suggesting that you might not be a good faith editor. You can show good faith by posting several links to CNN stories calling Trump a Nazi.

And by either saying that the "left leaning radical Communists" you mention at Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil), which is an odd combination of adjectives, are either IPs or name them." That one he said was in context but he'd revise if I showed him it wasn't, which I did. And he didn't. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:Why are you telling me to read articles but not telling me what is wrong with the citation that I have given? I tell you why, because you are not interested in that. Which is why you are bringing up irrelevant things but not acknowledging or addressing the question I am raising. Not a single person here has answered whether they doubt that the incident actually happened, all of you are just telling me I am fringe and pointing me in useless directions and trying to raise unrelated points. I am not interested in this farcical discussion anymore. It is almost like being in a communist party working committee or something where decisions are imposed and the "procedure" is just a mask used as a figleaf of rationality or democracy. I have no expectation of getting a just hearing here. You are right about one thing though, my "demand" was misplaced. A demand for rationality or honesty cannot be made in a forum which is being run like a fiefdom instead of rationality. Have a good day. --Berzerker king (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Berzerker king, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially for biographies of living people, are not "useless directions" or "unrelated points". They are requirements that Wikipedia article content must follow. If you do not or cannot understand that, and are unwilling to understand that, then you will not last long on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This Washington Post article says that Farrakhan was trying to chant "Death to Israel" in Farsi and that people in the crowd changed the chant to "Death to America". It also says that Farrakhan tweeted that he never chanted "Death to America". So, the facts are in dispute. If anything is to be added to the article, it must summarize the full range of reliable sources and must include Farrakhan's denial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Per NYT (AP) - "Earlier on his trip to Iran, state television published a short video clip of Farrakhan trying to say "Death to Israel" in Farsi, a common chant at rallies in the decades after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. He began to repeat it, but the crowd at Tehran University sitting at Farrakhan's event then substituted "America" for "Israel," drawing laughter." (it also mentions Farrakhan's denial as should we). Regardless of the specific wording (which we should carefully balance) - it is clear that this episode is clearly DUE and widely covered.Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How is it "clear that this episode is clearly DUE and widely covered"? So far a couple of lines in one AP article (both NYT and WaPO are the AP article) about his warning Trump of a possible Mideast war. I think it's still very much in question whether this silly and deliberately mis-chanted crowd chant is encyclopedically noteworthy for a BLP. See WP:NOTNEWS. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender:You are trying to bully me by saying things like "you won't last long" and stuff? Rather than replying whether you think the incident did not happen, you are sending me to the guidelines page and you consider that a reasonable thing to do? You get a traffic ticket and instead of telling you what infraction you did the police gives you a book an says read in there, is that how you want things to be? --Berzerker king (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

If you perceive a good-faith piece of advice as "bullying", well, I really can't help you and will cease trying. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen:In another discussion I was having with @Doug Weller:, he refused to allow the categorization of the Social liberal party of Brazil and Borsalano's categorzation as far right as disputed, despite similar citations being given - news articles from mainstream questioning the categorization and denial by the party and the politician about being far right. In that case, I was not allowed to give those references and put the "far right" categorization as disputed. I can fully agree with your point that we should mention both articles and put the incident as disputed, but the same yardstick must be applied at all places. It cannot be that for some political parties and ideologies an automatic condemnation as extremist and fringe is used whimsically and for other ideologies and religious leaders, a completely different yardstick is applied and attempts are made to "we shouldn't be adding every bad thing this guy does". Doing such a thing would be showing bias. --Berzerker king (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

One problem is that you have this fringe idea that Nazism and Fascism are left-wing, which leads me to assume that your ideas about what "far right" implies are just as unusual. Your personal yardstick is not Wikipedia's. Plus it's hard to trust you when you say that CNN regularly has stories calling Trump a Nazi but refuse to show any evidence. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead and much content in the body, in addition to our various articles about the Nation of Islam, all make it clear that Farrakhan is an extremist. Misrepresentating a recent event for ideological reasons does not improve the article, though. As for Bolsanaro, I know relatively little about him and any discussion of his party and his ideology should take place at the talk pages for those articles. This discussion is (or ought to be) about specific proposals to improve this biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead description of views

MShabazz I believe you are mistaken in these reverts[35][36], both in your action and the explanation provided. First of all, the fact that the subject's statements have widely been interpreted as racist, homophobic, and antisemitic is not up for debate and well-sourced. The NYT article, indisputably a reliable source, could have been replaced with any number of others. In fact, the way the text stands as is violates WP:INTEXT, not the version I edited. The characterization of Farrakhan's views in this manner is not limited to the two organizations cited, and it is perfectly appropriate and even necessary to attribute a common interpretation more generally, and especially per WP:MOSLEAD since this is also discussed later in the article.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you believe that your opinions are facts. Nevertheless, they remain opinions and need to be attributed. Please see WP:BLP, WP:LABEL, and the RfC higher up on this page. If you disagree, feel free to make your argument at WP:BLP/N. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Not necessary. And frankly, I'm not clear on what you're talking about or what your policy objection is; I'm not asserting that those are facts - I'm asserting that that's what's been reported by the sources. And I didn't apply any WP:LABELS. The edit said that his remarks have interpreted in a certain manner, wholly consistent with WP:MOS which states that words like "some have said" are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. That his comments have been perceived as racist or anti-semitic is widely reported and mentioning as much in the lead does not require the level of specificity that you are demanding. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS reporting is not "opinion" - but fact. As for the RfC - it is limited to question of whether this should be stated in the first sentence. Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz the line he removed read Farrakhan has earned notoriety over the years for remarks that have been interpreted as homophobic, antisemitic, and racist. The citation was a NYT piece giving an overview of the history of coverage on him. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: - on closer reading of the NYT source, it does not quite support the language you are suggesting. For instance, it does not include the word "notoriety" or "notorious". I also don't see where you are pulling "homophobic" from that source (which I believe you may source elsewhere). I suggest that since whatever you craft here is bound to be challenged that you assemble a number a mainstream RSes (the NYT, and WaPo are a good start, should probably be augmented by another couple of sources) and then find a supporting quote from each for each fragment that you intend to suggest to introduce. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Notoriety is implied in the article; it says he drew national attention in 1984 for his antisemitic remarks. This is the essence of paraphrasing: describing precisely what the article said in slightly different terms. Here's the Rolling Stone calling him an openly anti-Semitic and homophobic leader. Frankly, those two sources cover all of the bases here: any more would probably be unnecessary and possibly even WP:CITEOVERKILL. Would you support the sentence above with these sources? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Implies is, in other words, WP:OR. I might personally agree with you, and I think that sources supporting notoriety may be found, however if you wish to garner wider support - you really need to follow the language in the sources you are citing more closes offer supporting quotes for each assertion you are making. "drawing national attention" is different (tone wise) from "notorious". Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I appreciate your playing devil's advocate but it's incorrect to characterize what I wrote as WP:OR. The NYT says he drew national attention for antisemitic remarks. Notoriety is "the state of being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed." This is clearly WP:PARAPHRASE. The reverting editor's argument was that it should be directly attributed, but each of these sources are simply reporting that a certain point of view (regarding the subject) is widely held. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of racism, antisemitism and sexism ?? (sic)

These titles are not fact-checking, they are partial. Not an alleged antisemit. He is definitively a racist, an antisemit and a sexist. A real shame for Umma, the nation of Islam... --Wisdood (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder that BLP applies on talk pages. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Not being a native speaker of the English language, could you please explain me to what you refer when you are talking about "BLP". Shalom. --Wisdood (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wisdood: - he meant Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Look it up!Tamsier (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)