Talk:Louis Farrakhan

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

This article is extremely biased, as pointed out before, the leading sentence of "Black Supremacist" is ridiculous to anybody familiar with his work, and ultimately this feels like slander. This needs to be fixed. Now. --MikoMek (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We got antisemite out of the opening sentence, it would be more neutral to take out black supremacist as well. Plenty of descriptions of his beliefs in the rest of the article and in the Nation of Islam article. Unless he would describe himself as a black supremacist, WP:BLP demands that we not make it his primary label. Fnordware (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

How many white supremacists would describe themselves as such? Should we not call them white supremacists using this logic? Just because someone doesn’t call themselves something doesn’t mean we don’t use that label. AryKun (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but he is not a "black supremacist" in the first place. --Bisexual Antifa Terrorist (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ngl you make a valid point but your name is off-putting. If you wanna represent him respectfully you should do so with a proper name so that people don't perceive those defending him as representing the description in your name. 2603:8081:5000:1E66:141:2072:D11D:BA84 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence again

This article claims Farrakhan is a Black supremacist, and it is in the lead sentence of the article, yet there is no source provided for this claim. Is this not problematic? --Bisexual Antifa Terrorist (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ngl you make a valid point but your name is off-putting. If you wanna represent him respectfully you should do so with a proper name so that people don't perceive those defending him as representing the description in your name. @antifa 2603:8081:5000:1E66:141:2072:D11D:BA84 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I have removed the words "black supremacist" from the lead sentence. There has been some back and forth about this on the talk page, but the question has not been resolved (I only took a quick look, so I could be missing something). I am having trouble finding the RfC that was mentioned in the talk page earlier this year.

Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most important parts of the article. As far as "black supremacy" is concerned, the article body does not go into much depth. The only source that is cited for this proposition is the Southern Poverty Law Center. I am not contesting the accuracy of the statement, only its level of significance and the strength of its foundation in reliable sources. Based on the article itself and the sources, it would appear that words like "racist" and "anti-Semite" would be more well-founded than "black supremacist". A "you say po-TAY-to, I say "po-TAH-to" argument could be made to the contrary. MonMothma (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic as leading description?

This wordplay is meant to shape people's opinions rather than giving people an objective analysis or opportunity to come to their own conclusions based on their own observation.

Not only should it be "alleged" written somewhere in that sentence but it should be placed in a subsection of its own titled "controversy". Especially knowing that Wikimedia is 9 times outta 10 the first thing the world will look into when seeking information on a person. Its giving George Orwell's Ministry Of Information "1984" vibes.

I guess the Wikimedia foundation are the only people capable of characterizing historical figures based on their own terms. Who are the editors anyway?

Its clear that the people who do these sorts of things have either a personal bias or are beholden to a a certain expectation by the people who make these assertions. The language should be neutral.

I also find it strange especially that nobody else can edit this page, and it has remained the same for quite a while, but the moment this man sues the ADL for defamation of character the admins decided to highlight anti-semite and make it so that no one can make any modifications whatsoever. Yet you were okay with calling him a Black Supremacist , without regarding the context and history under which such institutions like the Nation Of Islam exist in the first place. 2603:8081:5000:1E66:141:2072:D11D:BA84 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

2603:8081:5000:1E66:141:2072:D11D:BA84, I respectfully disagree with your suggestions. May I draw your attention to a few points you may not have considered?

• Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most important parts of the article. Farrakhan's anti-Semitic rhetoric is given a good deal of attention in the article and is well-sourced, which is why it is mentioned in the lead.

• Per WP:CRITS, sections of articles that are devoted to criticisms or controversies should generally be avoided.

• You are correct that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Per WP:BALANCE, "neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources". Reliable sources are clear in describing Farrakhan's rhetoric as anti-Semitic, and they are cited in the article. If there are reliable sources out there that assert that Farrakhan's rhetoric is not anti-Semitic, they should be mentioned as well. Are you aware of any such sources?

• As to your concern about biased editing, per WP:GOODFAITH, "unless there is clear evidence to the contrary," editors should "assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it". I recently added a mention of anti-Semitism to the lead section. At the time, I did not even recall that Farrakhan had recently sued the Anti-Defamation League. I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you that the lawsuit and my edits to this page are not connected in any way.

• As to your concern about not being able to edit this page because it is semi-protected, you have two options. First, you could create a Wikipedia account. Once a user creates an account, and once that account is at least four days old and has made at least 10 edits, that user becomes auto-confirmed and is free to edit semi-protected pages like this one. The process is completely free and relatively painless (see WP:SIGNUP). Second, if you do not wish to create an account, you can propose edits here on the talk page (as you have already done).

I sincerely hope that this helps. MonMothma (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, my concern lies in you labeling him as being an anti-semite as a statement of fact and not a shared opinion, solely based on the subjective views of your side of the argument and with a total disregard for those who disagree with you. As if to say your opinion carries more weight.

My question is how do you contend with that? If I provide sources where he says he is not an anti-semite, or where he is engaged in a more constructive critique of white American society then people's opinion on the matter hangs somewhere in the middle of two diametrically opposed views.

It does not provide the reader with a prelude to understanding the nature of his perspective and characterizes him as being just as menacing as someone like David Duke despite the history of America.

To adhere to WP:CRITS and maintain neutrality, it might be more balanced to phrase it as "remarks perceived by some as Anti-Semetic toward the Jewish community," acknowledging Farrakhan's statements about not being an antisemite and positive interactions with Jewish culture. The language used to describe him should be in between. Neither this nor that. Especially since he is now suing the ADL for accusations of Antisemitism which in itself is a statement against the accusation.

I understand the emphasis on WP:BALANCE, and while reliable sources describe Farrakhan's rhetoric as anti-Semitic, introducing a nuanced statement in the lead could better reflect diverse perspectives, aligning with the principle of considering viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. If credible sources exist that assert Farrakhan's rhetoric is not anti-Semitic, incorporating them would enhance the article's overall balance.

And thanks for clarifying the login bit. I will make an account and follow through with that myself. 2603:8081:5000:1E66:141:2072:D11D:BA84 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)