Talk:Ajamu Baraka

From zero to 60 in 12 hours

Wow! I've read stories about presidential campaigns making a flurry of edits to the Wikipedia article for their VP nominee in the hours before they're announced, but I think this is the first time a candidate has had their entire article created in the hours after they were announced. Jordan117 (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC) ^^ The Clinton spinners have to earn their money.

SashiRolls (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The writings section seems to put Baraka in a negative light against figures in the democratic party. I think we need to make it much more NPOV. --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What changes would you suggest? Or you could just be bold and make some... Funcrunch (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The writings section seems to have the worst problems, so I moved the template to there. It seems to be focused on Baraka's criticisms of other party officials. Has he written on other subjects on Green politics? --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I created a "domestic policy" section and moved the statement on Hurricane Katrina and Rita from the Activism section to there; does that help? Funcrunch (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Have made some changes. I've taken out a bit from the page because there is no evidence of the specific citation (though it is not out-of-line with the point of view expressed in the recording). It would be better to have a verifiable citation, if someone can find a reference. I've also tried to clear up the neutrality issues mentioned above by reading the sources.

Removed, pending sourcing: "It's very clear that ISIS could not have developed in Syria without the direct and indirect support from the U.S." relevant resources: [1] & [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's between 11:00 and 12:00 in the No Lies radio interview. Please restore. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

just saw this. OK: How do you propose adding the question of the pipelines, which are of course the underlying question. (the direct antecedent of "these forces" in your citation is those forces focused on getting gas through Syria. I'll let you restore but be sure to be very clear about the fact that he's talking about pipelines. (As I recall you did not mention this part of what Dr. Baraka was saying.)

SashiRolls (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is this guy?

Very skimpy article. I guess it's a very new article, but still -- there's not much here. Nothing about his earlier life. What did his parents do? Is he related to Amiri Baraka? Did he change his name? How did he come to espouse the causes that he does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any reliable sources on the kinds of things you're asking about. If you find any, feel free to add them to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Please note that reverts to prose which mis-characterizes the articles (and must contort citations to do so) are not appreciated. In particular the third paragraph of foreign policy. I do not accept your revert, and would ask you to read the article before doing so again, what you call "weasel words" are actually the words used, what you reverted to is an inaccurate representation of what was written. Cheers. SashiRolls (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the section is now full of weasel words. The other editor added a word salad to describe this paragraph from Baraka's piece: "The dominant narrative on Syria, carefully cultivated by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media, is that the conflict in Syria is a courageous fight on the part of the majority of the Syrian people against the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad. As the story goes, the al-Assad “regime,” (it is never referred to as a government), can only maintain its power through the use of force. By attacking “its own citizens,” the regime, representing the minority Alawite community, can only maintain its dominance over the rest of the country through sheer terror. However, events in Syria, with the election being a dramatic example, continue to reveal fissures in that story."

* My version read: "In June 2014, Baraka rejected the notion that Bashar al-Assad's regime is a brutal dictatorship, calling the notion a "carefully cultivated [narrative] by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media.""

* The other guy's version reads: "In June 2014, Baraka pointed out contradictions in the traditional narrative that the West was going after Bashar al-Assad's regime because it was a brutal dictatorship, saying that this notion was "carefully cultivated by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media."

Anyone with reading comprehension understands that Baraka's article, titled 'The Syrian Elections', is conveying that the Assad regime is legitimate and that the narrative of a brutal dictatorship is false. The other editor also added a vague sentence about the 2014 Ukrainian elections, which leaves readers no clue or context to what Baraka said.

* My version read: "Baraka argued that it was contradictory for the West to support the elections in war-torn Ukraine in 2014, arguing that those elections occurred in similar circumstances as those in Syria."

* The other guy's version reads: "Baraka notes the contrast with the simultaneous international support for elections in war-torn Ukraine. "

Please restore my edits and revert the other guy's weasel words. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The introductory text from a long article being quoted says: "The dominant narrative on Syria, carefully cultivated by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media", is that the conflict in Syria is a courageous fight on the part of the majority of the Syrian people against the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad. As the story goes, the al-Assad “regime,” (it is never referred to as a government), can only maintain its power through the use of force. By attacking “its own citizens,” the regime, representing the minority Alawite community, can only maintain its dominance over the rest of the country through sheer terror.

However, events in Syria, with the election being a dramatic example, continue to reveal fissures in that story."

SashiRolls (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted that on this talk page. What exactly is your point? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

So, yes, I reintroduced the exact quote (you had to adapt your version of it to fit your rewriting of the story... and also remained faithful to the fact that this is a section about Baraka's writing, not a place for OR that rejects (or worse, rewrites in hostile fashion) those writings. Just the facts, not interpretations. I have chatted with non Alawite Syrians who agree with the sentence as you wrote it, but that's not the sentence Baraka wrote.

SashiRolls (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, your edit of my addition of Baraka's argument was unnecessarily wordy.

   * sashirolls: "Baraka notes the contrast with the simultaneous international support for elections in war-torn Ukraine. " 
   * snoogans (unnecessary?) edit: "Baraka argued that it was contradictory for the West to support the elections in war-torn Ukraine in 2014, arguing that those elections occurred in similar circumstances as those in Syria."

SashiRolls (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)