Talk:Louis Farrakhan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Request for comments concerning opening sentence

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

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

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 (u • t • c) 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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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 [12]. 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 [13] - 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)

RfC NOI

The piece as it stands is inconsistent with the separate NOI article, which is not nearly as severe or condemnatory. Is this balanced? I think not. The link alone to NOI would be confusing after this. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC classification change

SPLC has announced that henceforth it will no longer identify "black separatism" per se as a hate ideology. Where this article relies on the SPLC as a source, it should do so in a manner that fairly represents its current position, not only its position in the past. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Since the term "black separatism" is not directly used in the passage you attempted to remove, it is not clear how applicable the SPLC policy change will be to the articles cited. The NOI theology around Yacub remains. Philip Cross (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "black nationalism" isn't used in the cited SPLC page either (though it might have been in the past). The SPLC's new position will be elaborated in its next intelligence report, but the announcement already makes clear that it is foregrounding antisemitism and anti-LGBT views as its reasons for monitoring the NOI, and that "black separatist" will no longer be a basis of classification. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Hate Group"?

The lede seems overly political and subjective. Why include front and centre a negative judgment by The Southern Poverty Law Centre? NOI is not a proscribed organisation, and I daresay there are many other groups and individuals who might take issue with the description of NOI as a "hate group". Again, the fact that the group is not proscribed would seem to undermine that claim. Either way, this doesn't belong in the lede. Further down perhaps (and balanced), but not in the opening paragraph. Hanoi Road (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Calling NOI a hate group is an extremely subjective opinion and a violation of Wikipedia’s standards. Fielding99 (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The article quotes Farrakhan's denial of being a figure of hate at several points. The references in the text to Farrakhan or the NOI being so labelled are all cited to reliable sources rather than being written in the voice of Wikipedia. In other words, they are not necessarily the opinion of an editor. That is the test as to whether the claim is admissible on Wikipedia. Philip Cross (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Black nationalism in lede

The NYT has called the Nation of Islam a "Black nationalist movement", is it time to update the lede? [14] Opportunity to solve the above SPLC issue as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization

Page does not seem organized in terms of headings and sections. I will give it a shot and if anyone wants to assist after, that would be great. Thank you The Kingfisher (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

Remove the line “and anti-semite “ in introductory paragraph. 149.167.145.113 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion was started above. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional violin performance

To add to this article: information about Farrakhan's performance of the Beethoven Violin Concerto:

Link

173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Change this: “Louis Farrakhan is an American religious leader, political activist, and anti-Semite who heads the Nation of Islam.” To This: “ Louis Farrakhan is an American religious leader, political activist, who heads the Nation of Islam.” 2601:C4:C080:63D0:C1D4:CC6:382C:1A1 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed above. Please get consensus of you'd like to change that prose. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote previously, a discussion was started above. If you want to add your viewpoint, please do it there. Thank you The Kingfisher (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

antisemite / anti-Semite in lead

@JohnBlaz: please show me the Wikipedia policy on which you based your two (1|2) reverts of an edit with 12 reliable sources backing it? Here are the RSs:

  • "Farrakhan is an antisemite who routinely accuses Jews of manipulating the U.S. government and controlling the levers of world power." | "Louis Farrakhan". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "...Louis Farrakhan has built a legacy of divisiveness as the lead­ing anti-Semite in Amer­ica." | "The Nation of Islam "Louis Farrakhan: America's Leading Anti-Semite"". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "...Louis Farrakhan is one of the country’s most popular and unrepentant anti-Semites." | Louis Farrakhan: An Unapologetic Anti-Semite ADL, retrieved 2021-04-21
  • "...notorious anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan." | Kass, John. "Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism and the silence of the left". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "Farrakhan is a longtime, vehement anti-Semite..." | Staff, Times of Israel; Agencies. "Suspect in deadly US Capitol attack was Farrakhan follower, raged against gov't". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2021-04-22.
  • "Farrakhan is, for the record, a raging anti-Semite." | Stern, Marlow (2020-06-17). "Hollywood Celebs Are Praising an Anti-Semitic Hatemonger". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "...'Farrakhan is a racist, anti-Semite — a demagogue and divider'.” | "Fox Soul Announces It Will Not Broadcast Louis Farrakhan July 4 Address". Jewish Journal. 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "And the Anti-Defamation League has called Minister Farrakhan America's leading anti-Semite." | "Revisiting Louis Farrakhan's Influence Amid Celebrities' Anti-Semitic Comments". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "The watchdog group has called Farrakhan, who has led the Nation of Islam since 1977, 'quite possibly America’s most popular anti-Semite'.” | Editor, By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion (2019-05-09). "A Catholic church hosted Louis Farrakhan for an anti-Facebook speech. At least one Jewish group was not happy about it". CNN. Retrieved 2021-04-21. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • "The group describes him as a 'known anti-Semite'." | ABC, NEWS. "Republican Jewish Coalition calls for resignation of 7 Democrats over 'ties' to Farrakhan". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labels Farrakhan as an anti-Semite." | Cohen, Seth. "Falling For Farrakhan? How Black-Jewish Relations Keep Stumbling Over One Man". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  • "When and how did it become acceptable to be an anti-Semite? When did it become okay to socialize with and even praise a Jew hater? I am referring, of course, to Louis Farrakhan..." | Cohen, Richard. "Opinion | Why does the left still associate with Louis Farrakhan?". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-04-21.

Aside from the well sourced edit, here are a few examples of “anti-Muslim” in the lead, along with discussions, that give serious precedent:

And, just for note, JohnBlaz, reverting an edit is not a minor edit. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of this section, thank you for pointing me here. There has been a spate of drive-by insertions of "anti-Semitic" into the lead by IPs without explanation, so I had earlier semi-protected the article. I don't think anybody disputes that Farrakhan has a history of anti-Semitic speech. The issue is whether it belongs in the lead, and whether it outweighs all of the other things that Farrakhan has said. In general, the picking out of individual attributes is frowned upon, unless the issue is the person's sole defining characteristic, which I don't think is the case here, unlike the examples mentioned above. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Acroterion, I'm not a fan of all mentioned above, but to sum up Frank Gaffney's entire life and career by labeling him first and foremost in the lead as an "American anti-Muslim" is both misleading and POV-pushing, especially given your criteria. Whereas, I would argue that Farrakhan's entire career and exposure has been based on Black Nationalism and antisemitism. Look no further than the Simon Wiesenthal Center's report "Louis Farrakhan - Four Decades of Bigotry | In His Own Words": "Many other prominent Americans, including politicians, social activists, NGO leaders, and cultural figures, continue to praise and endorse Minister Farrakhan, who for four decades has exploited every opportunity to inject anti-Semitism into our society’s mainstream." WP:DUCK. However, the strongest case is made when the ADL, a leading organization to monitor antisemitism in a country rife with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, labeled Farrakhan "America’s Leading Anti-Semite." The Kingfisher (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Even so, flatly saying he is an anti-Semite in the opening sentence is a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion, especially egregious as WP:BLP applies. I assume the subject and many others would deny the accusation, so it should not simply be stated as fact. And anti-Semitism is not his primary activity the way white supremacy is David Duke's. It would be more appropriate to say in a following sentence, "the ADL labeled Farrakhan 'America's Leading Anti-Semite,'" which is a fact. Fnordware (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
It is neither a BLP nor NPOV violation. There's plenty of precedent labeling people as such in the lead sentence, for example, as shown above with "anti-Muslim". The lead sentence is not only about their profession. Considering that so many RSs refer to him as an antisemite and, the ADL calls him "America's Leading Anti-Semite", I believe it will be difficult to argue against it. The Kingfisher (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
If George Lincoln Rockwell, Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford don't have 'anti-semite' in their lead sentences, but Farrakhan does, it's fairly clear that this is a violation of the policy of neutral POV - especially when equally well-sourced information of his history of accusations of anti-semitism is freely and openly shown in his biographical information. It strikes me as a patently ideological choice. - Archesinyourarches (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Although it should not make any difference, as of this edit, both Hitler and Ford have "anti-Semite" in the lead. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler has never had this description before today, and are you really comparing making (admittedly very offensive remarks as Farrakhan does) to murdering 6 million people ? Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I got here by accident, but am involved in several of the related articles (inc NoI itself). Farrakhan's anti-semitism is fairly adequately covered in para 2 of thr lead, it does not need to be in the opening sentence and IMO is actually distracting there, for both stylistic and WEIGHT reasons. Some of the other people cited above are notable almost solely for their racism. That clearly does not apply to Farrakhan who has been for many years a leader of a significant religious and political group - but who is widely criticised for anti-semetic views he has expressed. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Both articles referred to above, those of Henry Ford and of Adolf Hitler, both at this point do not feature the description 'anti-Semite' in their leading sentences, because as is plainly obvious, to be an anti-Semite is not a profession or a substantial identifier of someone's social function. This move to include this designation in the lead sentence is absolutely not in keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I feel that this is straightforwardly logical, especially since the article itself contains perfectly valid information about Farrakhan's history with anti-semitism. I really must ask that this issue be settled, on the basis that 'anti-Semite' is simply not an objective and neutral statement regarding a person's profession or identity. Archersinyourarches (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I check in with this article occasionally, and I can say is, what's with the sudden influx of editors dead-set on removing an upfront reference to Farrakhan's well-known anti-semitism? Just another "NPOV" tug of war? If we're primarily concerned with "social function", we should simply shift it to 'anti-semetic conspiracy theorist', given all the things he blames on Jews (or as he and his followers sometimes try to clarify, just the "evil" ones). "Conspiracy theorist" is an acceptable descriptor for lead sentences, because it's an accurate and useful term in many instances. I believe specifying that he's primarily concerned with anti-semetic conspiracy theories settles this issue nicely. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:B9B4:5459:568F:1BA0 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

One of THMLF’s closest friends is a Catholic Priest so respectfully the anti white is not true 

2603:6080:AB01:731A:D555:CCC8:4C14:BA34 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SkyWarrior 23:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Subjective opinions

The editors of this page have failed to take a neutral, objective telling of this man and his legacy. This contradicts the merits of what an encyclopedia is; which is a reservoir of information about a subject. Anything about him that depicts him as a racist, bigot, anti-semite or anything else should be explored, with references within a subsection (I.e. “controversies”) of the page itself. This page currently reads as if the man is a teacher of hate first above all else, and not written within the confines of academic text. Imagine if George Washington’s page introduced him first and primarily as a racists who held dozens of African men, women and children hostage against their will at the threat of violence and death, destined for a life of hard labor. 24.155.171.5 (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted to make very modest edits to his page but they are determined to revert it back to slander as opposed to neutral views. Melaku4444 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

Okay. So I understand why people want to label Farrakhan as an antisemite, black supremacist, and homophobe right from the gecko as a fact by Wikipedia. However, such description has been in dispute by those who argue that he lead the movement for Black Liberation. So let’s make a comprise. We can say that he’s a controversial leader alright. And we can say that his remarks are condemned by civil rights groups on the first paragraph, okay. This follows Wikipedia policy very well on neutrality and I think we can come to an agreement on that. 2603:8001:A606:8C21:E1EA:D140:A94D:77D7 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've attempted to make very modest edits to his page but they are determined to revert it back to slander as opposed to neutral views. They don't even want to acknowledge the fact that he is a pan Africanist and a black nationalist. Melaku4444 (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Modest editorial

I've attempted to make very modest edits to his page, such as mentioning the fact that he is, by his own personal account, a Pan Africanist and a composure of music as well as a violinist. They are determined to make the front lines slander as opposed to neutral views. They don't even want to acknowledge the fact that he is a pan Africanist and a black nationalist. Melaku4444 (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Labelling the man

You cannot start a wikipage demeaning a person and describing him as a racist and an antisemite since these are only opinions of people who may just dislike the man, and reflected from a mostly bigotted entity such as ADL. You can certainly add such opinions later in the article, under for example "Controversies", but definitely not the title of the character description.. While I do agree with some of the description and contents, obviously this article is totally biased, and one would expect more credibility from Wikipedia. 213.112.22.238 (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

you really expect more from wikipedia? 'if you want to know who's really in charge, look at who you cannot criticize' 122.60.63.71 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

Change "Black Supremacist" and "Anti-white conspiracy theorist" to "Human rights Activist" Daisy 646 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Change Black Supremacist and Anti-white conspiracy theorist to Human Rights Activist Daisy 646 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:RS and WP:V Cannolis (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you Wikipedia lying about Min Louis Farrakhan! This is why I stop donating! You are wicked for tell these lies

I am definitely not donating to your cause and this madness and I will bring attention to this matter! The NOI is not a black Supremacist group there is no such thing as a black Supremacist! Name one person that was harmed by Minister Farrakhan! Name one white person that was harmed by Min Farrakhan! I can’t believe you are calling black people supremacists! What white communities that blacks people owned! I am very disappointed with Wikipedia and your hatred of him that you are so emotionally engulfed with venom that you would write these lies! You need to edit this! I will make it my business to share this with others! This is sad! 2600:1702:2DC0:79C0:CC52:7AF8:DEF:335F (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is going to change the article from what reliable sources state just because you threaten not to donate. Also, your threat to recruit others to disrupt this article could get you blocked. TransOceanic (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Quote from Louis Farrakhan interview with a Jewish reporter

Let me say first that I admire the Jewish people because in every field of human endeavor, Jewish people – if not at the very top of that field – have contributed greatly to the growth and development of every discipline that is worthwhile; every aspect of science that is worthwhile; every aspect of culture that is worthwhile. So in essence, I have great admiration for the Jewish people -- and this is not to stroke you because you are here. It is why I attempt constantly to try to find an avenue to solve problems that may exist between us without preconditioned terms that insult each of us – knowing that the Jewish people have been the recipients of Divine Revelation coming from the prophets of God as representatives of God to the Jewish people. 2806:290:8800:C554:C9F2:75AF:B0ED:D476 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Where was that quote published? Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Following RfCs optional?

Talk:Louis_Farrakhan/Archive_2#Request for comments concerning opening sentence makes pretty clear what the community consensus is. Last checked, Local consensus can not override an RfC especially not the de minimis conversation held. Slywriter (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The label should be removed from the opening. Is already in the lead which was the RfC consensus. Springee (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

Please remove any terms stating "anti-white" or änti-semite" because they are false. he is anti-racist-whites and anti-racist anyone. His long-time friend and supporters include Father Pfleger, leaders of the Church of Scientology, and much more. Source/proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps6iIfv7_SU

Wikipedia is supposed to be fact-based and not based on opinions. This is horrible! Imani4real (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see cited sources. Also see WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

he should also be labeled as the following: racist, antisemitic. Thanks 107.122.173.3 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done These are already mentioned in the article. Please be specific about any changes you would like to make. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly problematic lead sentence

"an American black supremacist and anti-white cult leader" is a hell of a way to describe someone in the opening sentence of an article. I am *strongly* in favor of changing this to "an American religious leader". The facts of him being a Black supremacist are elsewhere in the intro. If nothing else, "cult leader" should be changed to "religious leader" — the implication here is that every member of the Nation of Islam is a cult follower. (To be clear, I am not a Nation of Islam supporter — but this is really extremely POV.) CircleAdrian (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hats off to you, I strongly agree! Newworldbiz (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep, whoever clown came up with that opening was definitely not trying to be encyclopedic. I’d call Farrakhan a religious leader or a black separatist at most. 2600:1700:FCEC:6800:2914:376A:1FB:718 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree as well. There is only one other mention of him being a cult leader in the article, and that is "His critics have labeled him a cult leader." There is no citation to the "fact" that he IS a cult leader, only that some people have LABELED him one. Stating political opponents' opinions as fact is terribly slanted. 156.96.151.132 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm changing it Bkatcher (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, a win for NPOV. Fnordware (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Relative lack of press on Louis Farrakhan opinions on Donald Trump.

Little or no comment from the leader of the NOI, Louis Farrakhan on Donald Trump and the insurrection attempt. At 90 years old, had he lost his exuberance for the cause? 96.46.15.183 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Bias categories

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.
Involved close for reason: dispute moved to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#RfC_notices. Mgp28 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Should this page be included in Category:Anti-white racism in the United States, Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in the United States, Category:Antisemitism in the United States, Category:Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States, and Category:Political extremism in the United States? (Contributors to this RfC may also wish to take part in Talk:Samaire Armstrong#RfC: Racism category and Talk:Malik Zulu Shabazz#RfC: Racism categories.) gnu57 01:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  • No per WP:CATBLP: Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist. gnu57 01:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

born Louis Eugene Walcott; May 11, 1933) is an American black supremacist and religious leader who heads the Nation of Islam (NOI).

You must correct this false information RickyBronco77 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Farrakhan/Archive_2&oldid=1213165134"