Talk:Louis Farrakhan

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)