Talk:Louis Farrakhan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request for comments concerning opening sentence[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) The result by clear consensus is to denote the subject as an antisemite (a characterization that no participant in the threaded discussion has convincingly challenged) in the lead section but not in the lead sentence. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


Should the opening sentence of this biography describe Louis Farrakhan, in Wikipedia's voice, as an antisemite (in addition to being an American religious leader, black nationalist, activist, and social commentator), or is that an opinion best attributed to its sources elsewhere in the lead section? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

For the sake of the closer, please limit your response in this section to Opening sentence, Elsewhere in the lead section, or Other (with a very brief explanation). Please discuss your response in the Threaded discussion section. Thank you.

  • Elsewhere in lead, but really what I'm objecting to is "anti-semite" being grouped with "American religious leader". Ideology and activities should be separated. See below for further detail. Vanamonde (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere in lead --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Opening sentence. Describing Farrakhan as "is an American religious leader, black nationalist, activist, and social commentator" is decidedly non-neutral and PEACKOCKY given that all four of these activities involve significant hate speech. Farrakhan has a long history ([1][2],[3],[4]) of hate speech, dating back to at least 1984.[5][6][7] This hate speech is central to his activities, one of the main reasons he is covered by the media and others - and is routinely present right next to the first mention of his name when he is covered (including in the lede and title). With other BLPs known for hate speech, e.g. David Duke, we state this right in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere in the lead Per WP:TERTIARY ("Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight"), this is in line with, "Farrakhan, in full Louis Abdul Farrakhan, original name Louis Eugene Walcott, (born May 11, 1933, Bronx, New York, New York, U.S.), leader (from 1978) of the Nation of Islam, an African American movement that combined elements of Islam with black nationalism." It's also in line with WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:IMPARTIAL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere in the lead (as now along with his denial). His denial ends with a singular focus on the Palestinian question: "The more fair, just and equitable the solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the more the anger of those on both sides will subside." Jzsj (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere in the lead. (Summoned by bot) While unquestionably anti-Semitic, putting it in the lead sentence is overkill. Even Adolf Hitler doesn't have his anti-Semitism in the lead sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere in the lead per all of the above, but also including WP:PUBLICFIGURE. See Linda Sarsour for how to write it neutrally. (summoned by ping) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • First Sentence, it is quite apparent that he is notable for his antisemitic views, and calling him an activist, etc. in the first sentence without qualifying that seems to be NPOV. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere in lead, Vanamonde-style. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Opening sentence, one of the most notable aspects of his fame is his notoriety as an anti-Semite. As I've previously said, he has been denounced again and again as one, and his Wikipedia article should reflect that by including it in the very first sentence. Shui Yuena (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Anywhere in lead suffices; this seems like a more than appropriate balance of the interests. It makes sense to attribute such a strong and unflattering WP:LABEL, and so long as the criticism is presented in the lead section, that is a sufficiently neutral approach to discussing the subject's more controversial characteristics. Snow let's rap 18:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Opening sentence. It has at least as much weight (in RS) as many of the other things mentioned in the first sentence, so it should not be given less weight by being mentioned later in the lead. -Obsidi (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Note. This user has been banned for WP:NOTHERE. wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Striking off commentary by blocked user. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Unstruck (as a procedural matter, after close); please see WP:TPG for the relevant guidelines, we do not strike the comments of other editors simply because they have been blocked; only if they are socking or violating a ban are we allowed to strike. We do not treat a blocked editor's previous contributions as anathema, even if they were blocked for disruption, except under certain very specific criteria not met here. Snow let's rap 05:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • NOT FIRST LINE Show restraint please. Per BLP guide to be restrained and LABEL guide to caution with such and to only say it if widely agreed and even then attribute it. Starting off with a vague pejorative is just bad practice, it looks sloppy and a prejudicial bias or not neutral tone, WP as insulter instead of informative. So, suggest show restraint. The first line should only identify the topic — save the judgements for AFTER giving an identity and maybe some info, or at least until the second line, not before all else. I would even be happy if such declaring unclean as first thing, in wikivoice, as a fact (with no evidence) not be in the LEAD of BLPs for anyone, or similar start-with-insult on topics in general, but I know articles do go that way. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere in the lead --Thi (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Pinging the editors who have commented above or at WP:BLP/N, or edited the sentence to add or remove antisemitism (except those who have since been perma-blocked): @Poweryokel, Drmies, NatGertler, Yurivict, Wumbolo, Shui Yuena, Icewhiz, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, Alexandermcnabb, Alanscottwalker, and Vanamonde93:. Apologies if I omitted anybody. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I came to this article from an FAC review for an article that linked here, so I wasn't even aware that that content I removed had been placed there less than a day ago. Anyhow: it's fairly clear to me that the sources describe Farrakhan as an anti-semite. However, being anti-semitic is an ideological position, not an occupation; moreover, it's a label typically applied by commentators, and rarely if ever accepted by the person it is applied to. I think the lead needs to separate what he did from what he believed in, and within that second category, separate what he identified as from what others have described him as. Working with the current version of the lead, I would also remove "black nationalist" from the first sentence, and add it to the third paragraph with the qualifier "Farrakhan identifies as a black nationalist", which from my understanding of the subject, is true (please correct me if it's not). A mention of his ties to scientology might also be appropriate there. Vanamonde (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The above strikes me as so eminently reasonable I had to stand back and admire it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not "just a belief" - Farrakhan has been employing this hate speech in his public speaking in regards to his other causes.[8][9][10] Icewhiz (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Want to second Alexandermcnabb, this is extremely well put. ~ Amory (utc) 13:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Antisemitism not the most central descriptor of his means or goals. Black nationalism is more central, but even that if kept in sentence one should at least be phrase as something he promotes, a goal his work is intended to achieve. Neither Adolf Hitler nor Father Coughlin have their antisemitism mentioned in the first sentence; it's just not our standard style. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler: bullshit. Hitler's article's lead sentence states that he was a demagogue. wumbolo ^^^ 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "demagogue" would seem a fairly central description of Hitler's method. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
So call him a demagogue, which means first off "a popular leader". Why he uses that leadership, for one cause or another, is matter for more careful assessment. Jzsj (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The Hitler article makes clear - at the end of the first paragraph - that he "was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust." - this is a more prominent location that the middle of the first sentence. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Farrakhan is no Hitler. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
He sure loves Hitler, though! 1984 in NYT, 2018 in NYT Shui Yuena (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • After reading the context of his remarks in the footnotes connected with his alleged "antisemitic ... anti-white" ideology, I read the anger of the blacks to whom he is appealing as directed against the dominant class in a country that tries to control the world for its own interests, and in the course of this ignores the rightful claims of blacks and of those of Islamic faith. Jzsj (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Calling Adolf Hitler a "very great man" surely fits into that narrative.(1984 in NYT, 2018 in NYT. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
However, I think that given his age and lengthy career, placing anti-Semitism in the first sentence strikes me as disproportionate. It is covered in the article and mentioned in the lead, albeit with somewhat excessive attention devoted to his denials. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That someone would say "he is notable for his antisemitic views" is the height of foolishness. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Why is that? He absolutely is! Along with other things, he is known to the public as an anti-Semite. Shui Yuena (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Saying that over and over again doesn't make it true. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
You might want to read this: [11] Louis Farrakhan is notable for being antisemitic. He may be notable for other stuff too, but you can't deny that he is notable for his antisemitism. That would be foolish. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
But there are editorial questions beyond that. Even for those editors who are sold on the notion that his antisemitism rises to the level of a characteristic notable enough for the lead, there remain substantial concerns as to how to present that information. And even for those who feel he engages in hate speech and would to shine a light on that topic, there's a good argument to be made that fully attributed statements in the lead, comprising their own paragraph, are more useful for presenting that information to the reader than is a single word, without context, no natter where it is placed. Imagine for example that you are a person of colour living in America. You've lived a life where you've often seen the black community's leaders being vilified through exaggeration and misinformation and you expect that systemic bias to seep into the narrative everywhere--even somewhere like Wikipedia. You see someone make a strong claim of hate speech against a man who has made a lifelong reputation for pushing back against the kind of racism that is perhaps most familiar to you, and perhaps have not had the benefit of hearing contrary views, so when you seem the claim made bluntly as a casual statement of fact, you are skeptical. Now imagine you're that same person, only you see that it is the SPLC who notes that this icon has engaged in racist rhetoric. And maybe, knowing that organization, and the nature of its history, mission, and perspectives, you're a little more willing to take their word for it than you would have been to credit that of whatever random editor who added the unattributed claim.
Not every reader is a black American, of course, but everybody comes to a given article about a controversial figure armed with some degree of bias in some area or another. And that's the entire point of our NPOV policies and attribution practices: we do not stamp our own perspective across the article in such a way as to confront the reader with the decision to blindly accept our interpretation or reject it in favour of previously held notions. Instead, wherever controversy exists, we provide the reader with the summary of perspectives (adjusted for the weight they carry in reliable sources) and provide them with resources they can use to further educate themselves in detail--and to double-check the nature in which we relay that information, if they are so-inclined. We do this of course for editorial and pragmatic purposes connected to our commitment to neutrality and reliability, but I will note that beyond the project, this is actually the best methodology for inoculating a population against the influence of hatemongers; you can't play whack-a-mole with every antisemite and racial nationalist out there, and it's far better to engage in habits which encourage people to be skeptical and methodical in evaluating for themselves the information put before them, and to investigate the ultimate sources of those accounts.
Anyway, a little bit of soapboxing there at the end, I will grant you, but regardless, policy requires us to approach contentions labels with the precautionary principle. I'd just like to try to assuage your concerns about that by suggesting that this aim does not have to be mutually exclusive with the effort at shinning a light on hate speech and the movements it inures itself in. Snow let's rap 23:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose isn't "truth", and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer seems to disagree with your comment. wumbolo ^^^ 12:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's purpose isn't 'truth'" I'm pretty sure everything I said above emphasizes exactly that point, so I'm a little confused as to what meaning you took from my comments. Snow let's rap 22:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You proposed that we go out of our way to prove that he's an anti-Semite. Per WP:YESPOV, we shouldn't attribute widely accepted opinions. wumbolo ^^^ 05:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not proposing you try to "prove" anything. That would be the definition of a WP:truth-seeking exercise. I'm proposing we follow policy on how to present contentious labels and disputed descriptions. And honestly, you could do worse for a summary of those principles than the section of policy you cited, WP:YESPOV, though frankly virtually every word of it argues so strongly against your preferred course of action, I have to wonder if you bothered to re-familiarize yourself with it before invoking it here. Here's just some of the relevant language from that section (with particularly germane guidance underlined):
  • "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.' ...
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. ...
  • Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."
I'm sure the provision you meant to invoke is the one that concerns not presenting "facts as opinions", but for rather obvious reasons, that section is clear that it applies only to "non-contested and non-controversial" statements. Clearly the WP:LABEL here is contested and controversial enough that (under not only WP:YESPOV's standards but indeed every other relevant policy concerning WP:weight, WP:neutral point of view and WP:verification broadly) attribution is what is clearly expected of us, and what will serve our readers the best. Indeed, your perspective on that point has been roundly rejected in the survey above. Nobody is trying to hide Farrakhan's history of public derogatory statements regarding the Jewish people; in fact, the attribution approach better foregrounds them. By comparison, throwing that one word "anti-semite" in there might make you feel better as an editor for having "called a spade a spade", but it would leave the reader with a poorer understanding of the exact nature of the criticisms leveled against the subject than attribution will. Snow let's rap 11:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Above comment added by Tv503. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Noting Godwins law demonstrated. However, unless Nazi logic is prominent in coverage that’s not-includable OR. Look, this is supposed to be a biographical article in an encyclopedia and not a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:ATTACK page. If he declared himself anti-Semitic in those exact words, then we would relate that. What we have instead is a ‘some say’ X, ‘some say’ Y situation. Enough WEIGHT to cover in body, but it’s not something he spends all his time doing nor is it a life choice self-proclamation, nor has it had a major impact on his life. Most this should get is an ATTRIBUTED assertion if it was made by anyone prominent enough to matter, and for NPOV must include his denial and alternative views. Not a first-words of the article please. Not an insult venue please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Mark, while I agree with your ultimate position here (minus a few particulars: we don't care about the "prominence" of sources, only their reliability), the actual reason we can implement the IP's suggestion has nothing to do with the strength of the conclusions they reach, but rather the fact that we do not shape our content according to WP:original research. Note that our article on Godwin's law goes out of its way to note that the "law" is generally regarded as very weak to a number of criticisms: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate." In this regard, if we were not on Wikipedia, the anonymous IP's arguments would have substantial significance; it is a well-known fact amongst human rights scholars, senior statesmen, and just about anyone who has studied the phenomena of genocide and organized violence against an ethnicity generally that ethnic cleansing pretty much always (and I mean, without exception in all known modern instances) is forecast by people beginning to call the persecuted group by the names of vermin.
Which is not to say that you are wrong to have opposed including the content the IP was advocating for--as my comments above show, you and I are roughly in agreement here as to what the content should look like, as mandated by the relevant policies. But maybe next time predicate your response to the neophyte editor in the fact that their argument cannot be added because it is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, and leave dismissing their opinion through Godwin's "law" out of it; this is WP:NOTAFORUM after all, and when someone presents information that cannot be added in a particular way, especially if said proposer is an inexperienced editor, the better response is to explain the policy reasons for why, not intimate that they are objectively wrong. Snow let's rap 16:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and actually, taking a closer look at the source the IP provided, it seems their argument wasn't even particularly OR or SYNTH, since that source makes the comparison directly. I don't think one op-ed in one news magazine is sufficient weight to change the content decision adopted by consensus above, but it does make your response WP:OR, since the IP presented a sourced perspective and you responded to it with a personal opinion in the form of the Godwin's Law comment. Snow let's rap 16:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 6 November 2018[edit]

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 [12] 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" [1]. 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[edit]

MShabazz I believe you are mistaken in these reverts[13][14], 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)[edit]

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)

Is BLP out of the window when adding POV, controversial and inappropriate categories?[edit]

Maybe I'm losing my marbles, but even I can see that the categories added to this man's article are controversial and inappropriate, and possibly a contravention of our BLP categories. Going through the archives, it appears that I'm not the first one to raise this issue. @Dfalao: raised a similar concern back in 2007. I tried to remove the inappropriate and controversial ones but I was reverted [15]. Perhaps the community can shed some light on this, as this appears to be an ongoing issue. To prevent further problems maybe this issue really needs to be addressed. Pinging the most prolific cat buster I know — @Good Olfactory:, your advise is south here.Tamsier (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

the category is not "antisemites" it's "antisemitism" which clearly fits since it's discussed here, same as the other topics.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a tricky issue. One obvious solution is to prohibit placing BLP articles in Category:Antisemitism, because in a way it gets around placing an Category:Antisemitic people category on the article while maintaining the implication that the person is, and those types of categories have been deleted several times. But I haven't seen a consensus for that approach yet. One approach may be to nominate Category:Antisemitism at WP:CFD and propose that BLP articles be restricted from it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There is a discussion here on Category:Homophobia which resulted in a restriction on placing articles about people in that category. Perhaps this is a precedent you could point to and ask for the same treatment for Category:Antisemitism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Anti-semitism is discussed, but it still fails WP:CATDEF for a BLP. I think restricting addition to this category for BLPs is a good idea - it could be done by defining the scope at the category page. I think there would have to be a few exceptions - for example, anyone who was convicted of an anti-semitic hate crime could be added. Seraphim System (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Regardless, there are RS that calls Farrakhan an antisemite so it's not a problem at all to include an antisemitism category on this page, I would think the same thing also applies for the other categories. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I'm not so sure it's that clear-cut. Adding categories is not like adding other content – you don't just need a reliable source. Rather, the category has to be regarded as "defining" for the subject. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
            • In the case of antisemitism, the SPLC and the ADL both label him as such, and when it comes to labeling right wingers as racists, etc. the SPLC is used as a RS. It is perfectly acceptable in my opinion to have a category of antisemitism applied to this page. That there is currently a movement on this page and others throughout Wiki to downplay antisemitism is not something we should tolerate. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
              • Again, for categorization, it goes back not solely to whether there are RSs, it goes back to whether it is defining characteristic of the subject. Please don't imply that I am attempting to downplay antisemitism. I'm trying to apply our standards to a novel case that I haven't considered before. I think it would be useful for the issue to go to WP:CFD for discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
                • I'll add my voice in support of that approach; the issues clearly go beyond this article, and CFD seems like the appropriate forum to consider how this category ought to be approached. As has been noted above, categories have functionality and implications that are different from many other forms of content, and thus I don't think this is necessarily something that should be decided by a local consensus !vote for each article.
However, if we were to make a determination here, I would support removal of the cat. While there should be no effort to whitewash the man's history of unsettling statements, I think it is wisest to always discuss charges of racism in context, where the reader can be presented with the specifics. Using a category such as this will predispose any reader who is navigating that cat, and clicks on a link to this article there, to view Farrakhan in that light, before they have read one word about his beliefs and conduct. That's an inherently problematic approach which would degrade neutrality. I'd much rather paint an accurate picture of the man, let his own words (including those touching upon his antisemitism) speak for him, rather than just categorizing him. Even for those devoted to combating racism and shining a light on its proponents, the better approach is to present the whole story, not just shout the label dogmatically. Snow let's rap 20:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
After running into converging editorial issues at other articles several times over the last little while, I've changed my perspective on the above. Farrakhan has been doubling down on his antisemmitism over the last year and, although he has been making these kinds of comments since forever, they are attracting much even more notice than previously. I think the WP:WEIGHT argument is shifting on this, such that this is not just one of the things Farrakhan is notable for but indeed one of the top one or two things he is most notable for--at least insofar as contemporary coverage in WP:RS goes. In short, if the sources have decided to overwhelmingly call the spade for a spade, we can only put so much spin/interpretation upon their perspectives, even in the name of BLP. In light of that, if the straw !vote here ends up being controlling, I support inclusion of the cat.
However, note that this does not supercede the first part of my observations above: this is arguably a decision that ought to be made via CfD, which would control over a local consensus decision here. If a CfD or similar central discussion decides that BLPs should not be added to the cat, that's the end of the story. However, if the CfD decides that individuals can be added to the cat (or if that issue is left ambiguous such that a decision needs to be made here in the interim as to how to use the cat in regard to Farrakhan), I can support inclusion of the cat. Snow let's rap 02:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For people like me who are not familiar with the acronym RS, it means according to RS : In Wikipedia, RS can refer to the policy requiring the use of reliable sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources --Wisdood (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • One way to solve the issue is to wait for the year 1 933 + 120 = 2 053, so then it is likely it will not be any more a problem of BLP. People are unlikely to be immortal and live for ever. --Wisdood (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Clearly appropriate - he is designated as such by the SPLC and ADL. Much of the coverage of this individual is based on these remarks. Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks everyone for your feedback, and a special thanks to @Good Olfactory: and @Seraphim System: for shedding more light on our cat policies. Those are exactly my sentiments as you two have eloquently put it. There is definitely a room for having Category:Antisemitism in the United States which should help group antisemetic related articles in the US and enable the reader to identify them by going through the relevant cats. However, adding it and other controversial cats to a BLP is another way of getting around Category:Antisemitic people or Category:Antisemites which should not be added to a BLP unless the person has been convicted of that in a court of law, the conviction is not over turned, such conviction has been reported in independent reliable sources and is a defining feature of the persons notability. There is a balancing act between the legal ramifications of doing so and our own desires to add such cats just because it is convenient. Since there has been no conviction of such crimes as far as I know (unless someone can prove otherwise), it would be a contravention of our policies to add such cats on this BLP and similar. I also agree with perhaps defining the scope of Category:Antisemitism in the United States and Category:Antisemitism very clearly to stop people from adding said cats (or similar) to BLP articles - unless the person has been convicted of said crimes. Although both categories (especially Category:Antisemitism) made it absolutely clear that: It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic as per this 2011 discussion, I think a more clearer scope should be outlined to prevent confusion or future problems. @Icewhiz:, I appreciate the point you are trying to make. However, just because he has been designated as such by the SPLC and ADL does not mean he is, or have been convicted of such by a court of law. The late Nelson Mandela was regarded as a terrorist by some Western governments (Britain and America for instance) back in the day, does that mean we have to add Category:Terrorism to his article now? Tamsier (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Antisemitism is not a crime in the US, but rather protected free speech, so saying he was not convicted is a non sequitur. Likewise BLPCRIME is irrelevant. There are no serious sources that contest that Farrakhan has engaged in antisemitic speech. Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude per category descriptions. Category:Antisemitism in the United States says "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic. Repeat: articles about individuals, groups, or media that are alleged to be antisemitic must not be placed in this category." StAnselm (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Mainstream coverage treats this as factual, not an allegation. In fact, several figures have been accused of antisemitism for merely associating with Farrakhan (e.g. a recent examples would be Women's march [16] - The Women's March Has a Farrakhan Problem The group refuses to be accountable for a high-level alliance with an open anti-Semite..Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Well-supported by many reliable sources in article. BLP doesn't mean to hide information you don't like, it just means we need good sources to back it up.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Pointing to "mainstream coverage" is pointless, because news media aren't required to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:BLP, WP:CAT, WP:COP, and WP:TERRORIST. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant, RS is what we require. Farrakhan is not described as an alleged antisemite, but as an actual antisemite. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ordinarily that would be the case. Not so when categorizing biographies of living people. If it's been a while, I recommend you read the policies and guidelines I cited once again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support That a category may have negative connotations does not by default indicate a BLP issue. If this were the case, there wouldn't be categories for American conspiracy theorists, American fraudsters, and American Holocaust deniers, which are exclusively for BLPs. I don't see any of the opposing editors bringing up issues with the widespread use of those categories. Farrakhan's inclusion under the disputed categories is well-supported by a multitude of independent, reliable sources and is wholly appropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't see CfD discussions at which those categories were declared off-limits for biographical articles. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)