Talk:Jesse Lee Peterson

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

Interesting[edit]

"His views are strong towards anti-affirmative action" might better read as "His views against affirmative action are strong" or something like that.

This guy seems pretty interesting for a demagogue and I'd like to see more in-article quotes and other stuff. Pretty high-profile being linked to from Jesse Jackson's page.

71.116.217.242 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC) God Bless you, about time a preacher man tells it like it is. As I see it, Society is racist based on your last insult. We forget the nice, we remember the disrespectful, the ignorant, the fool. In general, the 15 to 25 year olds of all colors, creeds, and origins, until that chip is removed from thier shoulder, society pays for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.83.46 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Radio[edit]

Is his radio show still on? Tim Long 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Please do not remove the anti-Islam sentiment[edit]

THis talk page is for debate, so stop reverting peoples work. THis man is hostile towards Islam and has an Anti-Islamic Sentiment in his politics. See the cat for the full definition. Do not try to whitewash racism on Wiki as if he had said this about Judaism it wouldnt even be up for debate.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk on the category where you have been refuted in your attempts to change consensus on the misuse of the category. Kyaa the Catlord 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
U r one editor, The cat is valid for people who have a anti-Islamic voice. Why would you have a problem with this, you are the one blocking it everytime. Just like there is an anti-semitic one why not have an anti-Islamic one to identify bigotry against Islam. U point to some one else pushing an agenda but in all fairness equally you are pushing an agenda. If wiki had no such cats then i wouldnt have an issue, critic of Islam is weak, and if you can justify that then what is the issue. Discuss and stop reverting because you have failed to explain why some religions can have this cat and not others, esp in our current climate of Islamphobia.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OKAY, time for cooler heads to prevail here. Please Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, even if the basis of your point is valid. The January 28 comment controversy could have been avoided simply by citing a reliable source for the statement made. This should have been easy to do, as the event was openly reported in the news. Unlike other articles, you cannot leave potentially libelous material as "citation needed" in a biography, as that would leave Wikipedia open to lawsuit. Besides that, Wikipedia articles are required to be written in a neutral point of view--if you see an article that is anti-anything, there is a right way to report and take action on it. Edit warring is definitely the wrong way.-Robotam 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cooler heads did prevail. You're a bit late. Kyaa the Catlord 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, if you say so! -Robotam 16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Moreschi, Hipocrite and Dual Freq came in and took care of the BLP issues. GeorgeBP was finally blocked for the sockpuppetry/3rr he was engaged in elsewhere and peace once again was restored in Townsville USA. Yesterday. Kyaa the Catlord 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Outstanding. And re: the Jan 28th Peterson statement?-Robotam 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It is the editor who seeks the inclusion of the content's responsibility to source it, not the one who brings up the BLP issue. I gave the user the benefit of the doubt and asked kindly, coolly that the sources be found. I know now that I should have just removed it and walked away. I won't make that mistake again. I'm not the bad guy, I simply brought light to the problem. Kyaa the Catlord 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Just an FYI, there was no edit warring done over the removal of the January 28th incident. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourced negative information is not a problem: unsourced libellous material is. Feel free to include whatever sourced info there is available. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not laying blame at anyone's feet (and am not interested in doing so); I just saw the incident on the noticeboard and decided to check it out. I'm glad it all worked out--back to chasing another sockpuppet. cheers! -Robotam 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

The sources for the January 28th incident do not lead anywhere. This is a sourcing concern. Please find verifiable sources or this section will be removed per WP:BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 08:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Unless a source is found, do not include this "information." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thirded, though I may have removed this info already. This article is a BLP nightmare and needs proper sourcing. I have tried to remove the most potentially libellous information. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The category again[edit]

I repeat: until the article is sufficiently sourced, as is required per WP:ATT, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment should not appear in this article. There are insufficient reliable sources provided for such an assertion, which could be potentially libelous and fall foul of our policy WP:BLP. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting again, and can we please discuss this. The category itself contains this statement to the people to whom it applies: ""hostility toward Islam or prejudice against Muslims as a religious or political group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." As such, the inclusion of this category in the article is not on per WP:BLP. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of Date[edit]

See the sentence about his program on God's Learning Channel? It doesn't air there anymore. I should know; I'm one of the cameramen there. You might consider putting that text in the past tense, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi238 (talkcontribs) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Opinion[edit]

Can someone please explain why his comments about "Muslim Extremists" disliking America are included among the controversial? If it must be included, then perhaps it could be clarified as to what made the comment controversial. Mr. Peterson comments were not about "Islam". Is that not a common belief and understanding about Islamic Extremist Groups? EyePhoenix (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the actual controversial part, which someone removed from the paragraph, is when Peterson called Islam "an evil religion." You are correct that the context is lacking, and I will re-insert the quote to address that. Good catch.-RoBoTamice 14:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias source[edit]

Please stop using references from Left Wing (Media Matters) blog sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.25.123 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there something in the article that you specifically find untrue? Check the references again--save one or two, ALL of the citations are to sources considered conservative (a less loaded description than "right-wing" or "left-wing"). By the way, what Media Matters reference are you referring too?-RoBoTamice 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Educational background[edit]

This article says nothing about his educational background. A man with such radical opinions should have some qualifications to stand on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EducateDaSoul (talkcontribs) 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina[edit]

I've changed "some of" to "the majority of" in the sentence:

On September 21, 2005 Peterson penned a column for WorldNetDaily, in which he suggested that some of the African-American people stranded in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina were "welfare-pampered," "lazy" and "immoral."

I don't think that's POV-- it's something he says pretty unequivocally in his article on the topic. The original quote is:

When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out.

That's really the crux of his argument; there's no sense in watering it down for the controversy section. --Fullobeans (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-Hating African American?[edit]

Shouldn't this be included in the article somewhere? It's quite obvious he racist towards his own people. On October 20, 2008 - He said in Bill Cunningham's show that ""Most black people today are racist" and condemning blacks for voting for Obama. He even called the black Civil Right's activist back in the 60's "troublemakers". I think that says it all about him - A Self-Hating black man. Gouryella (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • According to the standards of WP:BLP, the answer to your question would be NO. -RoBoTamice 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally agree with the above although in some cases if criticism of a person as say "a self hating black man" becomes notable, and is in reputable sources, it can be included. Your personal opinion on him, or anyone living, is irrelevant.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • He has repeatedly stated his belief that slavery was a good thing, so I definitely agree with Gouryella's view of him, although reliable-source and BLP restrictions still apply of course...Stonemason89 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Statements"[edit]

The section is just another "Controversy" section (which Wikipedia frowns upon) with a different name, isn't it? 67.233.244.232 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced information[edit]

Every sentence in this article, hagiographic or propagandistic, which is not sourced, should be removed, per blp policy. controversial figures dont get free space, and neither do their detractors.(mercurywoodrose)99.101.137.96 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the following unsourced or overly detailed, promotional statements:

0.Peterson is also the founder and president of BOND Action, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization . In 2011, Peterson founded the South Central Los Angeles Tea Party, a black led Tea Party group. both unsourced, the former possibly not notable, as an additional group connected to the main one.

1. SCLATP:The group held major rally to counter the NAACP's narrative portraying the Tea Party movement as unfriendly to blacks. The rally and protest was held downtown Los Angeles outside the LA Convention Center the same week as the NAACP's Annual Convention. no source, POV.

1.5 Peterson hosted the Jesse Lee Peterson Show, which was produced and shown by God's Learning Channel. He has also made televised appearances discussing the "Urban Moral Crisis."[1] no info on who produced the show. vimeo link, not a source, and Urban Moral Crisis is his position, not a sourced idea.

2. His radio show is cited by Republican groups as an example of a black Republican message, including denunciations of affirmative action as "reverse racism". no source

3.

The Brotherhood Organization

The Brotherhood Organization operates several programs, including the BOND Home for Boys, After School Character-Building Program, Entrepreneur Program, Inmate Rehabilitation Program, and counseling services. no source provided,

4.The show is now a privately run national show airing live in several markets including Houston, TX, New Orleans, LA, Memphis, TN, and Tampa, FL. The show airs Mon-Fri., 9-12 Noon EST / 6-9 a.m. PST. The live broadcast and recorded broadcasts are also available online. overly detailed, no source

5.*Seven Guaranteed Steps to Spiritual and Financial Success (1998) ISBN 978-0-9798577-0-6 (self-published through Peterson's own publishing company Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny) self published, no other info provided.

6.NOTE: AP later retracted the item quoted in the Fox story, saying, "In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that during a panel discussion the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson said all Muslims hate America. Peterson called Islam an "evil religion" but the story should have made clear he was referring only to Muslim extremists when he said, "These folks hate us because we are a Christian nation and we support Israel."" from a reference, but no indication that this retraction was made.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jesse Lee Peterson. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)