Talk:Louis Farrakhan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Louis Farrakhan article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Neutrality Tag 2 POV 3 removed the following paragraph 4 removed because it was taken out of context 5 Sing-a-Long link from Fade to Black Comedy Magazine 6 From VfD 7 this section needs major work 8 Next Million Man March 9 Farrakhan as musician 10 Farrakahn as gay icon 11 Gutter religion, dirty religion, and so on 12 ADL Link 13 Farrakhan and religion 14 Anti-Semitic Category 15 Article 16 NPOV 17 NBC quotes 18 Teachings of the Nation Of Islam Quote 19 aledged vs documented 20 Orator, syntax, and the Joos 21 Orator or what 22 One of the longest marriages 23 Million Man March discrepancy 24 Trying to diminish Farrakhan will not work 25 NPOV in allegations 26 ADL 27 Let me break it down 28 Civil behaviour 29 Why an edit war will happen 30 Editwarring.... 31 Dewey, Kant, Hegel? 32 Description of Felix Mendelssohn is misleading 33 Category to add... 34 Missing Link to Interview Transcript

[edit] Neutrality Tag

I wanted to ask everyone how you think we're coming on making this article free from editor POV. Are we presenting the facts without coloring them to our own tastes or distastes? Do you feel the tag on the front page should come off soon? If not, what would it take? Thanks. Peace --DjSamwise 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is still in dispute. Because of disputes the improvements to this article have been stalled. There is still a substantial amount of information that could be added. This is important in light of his current health crisis. Should anything happen, his legacy will come into question and who knows maybe this could be a candidate for featured article. But in its current state, from a writing or language perspective, is not very enjoyable to read.

Understandably many editors have very strong feelings about this article which is primarily a story of racism( white on black racism, black on white racism etc). It is still biased against farrakhan and does little to show why he is influential. The reason his alleged racism is so important is because he is very influential in his community. Furthermore in public and on the record he portrays himself as a moderate.

This article should capture the whole essence of who farrakhan is as opposed to a list of one-liners of some of the more absurd things he has said. Then it would be more neutral.Muntuwandi 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. His story highlights racism on all sides. He was purposefully agitating to get his people to do something. This make for an inherrent hotbed of contention. Nevertheless, snips of quotes in the right context serve mainly to highlight the source of the contention in the same way as summaries of his defense serve to show how he'd like to be seen. I think the reason his racist allegations are so contended is that many statements unjustly blame millions improperly, as does any blanket racial remark does. --DjSamwise 17:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think we can continue to edit without these views being stated. :) The article as historically documented andcited should be able to speak for itself. --DjSamwise 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

You can all cover up anything you want about the guy on this page, but anyone with half a brain will see through the bullshit and realize Farrakhan is clearly racist and anti-Semetic.

--68.192.92.58 00:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly. I don't agree with Farrakhan's general belief system, but anti-Semitic? He occasionally criticises certain Jewish organisations, and the State of Israel. Does that make him anti-Semitic? He has criticised the Rothschilds for being shareholders in the Federal Reserve of the USA. Even the Rothschilds have recently criticised the State of Israel. I suppose they are 'anti-semites', too? Let us not try to counter mobbing and xenophobia with broad witch-hunting for 'anti-Semites'. Farrakhan is certainly 'racist' in the sense that his creed revolves around the Black Race. However, anti-Semitic is not an accurate label. He associates with many Jewish groups and individuals. He could be called 'anti-Zionist', for sure. So are many Orthodox Jews (e.g. Jews Against Zionism), and so are many Jews who disagree with the USA/Israeli foreign policy in the Middle-East. Matthew A.J.י.B. 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Farrakhan has made some outrageous statements, and his opponents never tire of trumpeting them as "evidence" of his alleged nefariousness. One wonders why he doesn't retract such statements.

One reason may be that a retraction may be seen as a sign of weakness and thus may do more public relations harm than good to him and/or his movement.

Minister Farrakhan has cooperated with the Unification Movement, despite Rev. Moon's well-known pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish stance. I know it's puzzling that he hasn't taken back his anti-Semitic remarks, but I think it's more of a refusal to back down (or "knuckle under") to pressure than a continued commitment to old ideas.

I say this on the basis of several hours of research, including watching videotapes of his sermons. Also, my friend and fellow Unificationist David Eaton produced the stage show for the Million Family March, and he wouldn't have done so if he thought Farrakhan was bad.

--Uncle Ed 13:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Even the muckraking Rick Ross, an advocate of deprogramming and an opponent of the both Moon and Farrakhan, concedes:

Farrakhan, 67, who has suffered from prostate cancer, emerged from his illness earlier this year with new messages of reconciliation. While Farrakhan watchers are divided about the sincerity of his change of heart, the new messages of inclusiveness are evident in Farrakhan's approach to the march. He has invited people of all ethnicities, races and religions -- even Jews -- to march "under their own banners" at the Million Family March. [1]

The interview links at the bottom of the article address the so-called outrageous statements and besides they are fantastic reading. MisterSheik 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed the following paragraph

Along with a few more minor edits, I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

He has aroused considerable controversy by claiming that white people are the product of genetic experiments performed by negro scientists, and that they will rule the earth for 6,000 years before being "crushed by the black gods". Furthermore he has called Judaism a "gutter religion" and advocates violence against Jews and Christians.

First, the part about "negro scientists" has survived somehow from this POV edit by an anon IP that was mostly fixed. While Farrakhan has made some weird statements about the "origins of white people", they have been all over the map over many years and it's pretty hard to say just what he actually belives. Second, the material about Judaism being a gutter religion has been repeatedly debunked, perhaps most effectively by conservative economist Jude Wanniski in a letter to the New York Times -- it can be found on his website here: http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/04-05-00.html -- as well as here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20869 -- Also a Google search on the phrase "crushed by the black gods" only finds Wikipedia and its mirrors.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] removed because it was taken out of context

The following paragraph was removed because it was taken out of context and is out of place in such a short article-- see the ADL web site: http://www.adl.org/presrele/NatIsl_81/2686_81.asp

Farrakhan is virulently anti-Semetic, stating in 1996 “And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood…You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone.”

Also see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nation_of_Islam_anti-semitism

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The editor definately threw in some POV there. Nevertheless the quote was accuracte was it not? --DjSamwise 03:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sing-a-Long link from Fade to Black Comedy Magazine

I removed the link [* http://www.fadetoblack.com/farrakhan/index.html "Sing A-Long with Louis Farrakhan", a look at his career as a Calypso singer]

Here's some of the content:

Although unfamiliar with Calypso music we had a hunch that these recordings would be rich with comedic possibilities.... we were not wrong. So, we donned our grass skirts, grabbed our favorite maracas, put on our Carmen Miranda headsets, and dove into the world of Calypso music. We called hundreds of antique record stores across the country, dug through countless bargain bins and placed numerous 'want ads' in search of any and all recordings by "The Charmer".

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From VfD

A substantial number of quotes alleging Farrakhan's anti-semitic views have been merged into this article from "Nation of Islam anti-semitism". That stand-alone article was thought to be inherently POV and difficult to maintain. I believe the quotes should be integrated into this article where they can be placed in context. I don't think I did a very good job of integrating them, though.

To preserve GFDL, the contribution history of that page is pasted below. Rossami 06:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• 01:19, 5 Sep 2004 Yath m
• 09:06, 2 Sep 2004 Pteron (+vfd)
• 14:07, 8 Aug 2004 RedWolf m (disambiguation: German)
• 18:17, 20 Jun 2004 IZAK
• 18:15, 20 Jun 2004 IZAK
• 04:00, 8 May 2004 128.59.6.111 (wikified)
• 18:18, 22 Dec 2003 82.49.84.154
• 14:05, 22 Dec 2003 146.50.160.82 (Arabic people are semitic)
• 04:18, 19 Nov 2003 67.101.44.69 (Copy edit (ocotber -> October))
• 22:37, 7 Feb 2003 RK (new article.)

[edit] this section needs major work

I removed the following part from the article because it needs major work. we can keep in here until it gets worked on:

Most Muslims all over the world reject and disapprove of this group because of its seemingly divergence, sometimes extreme, from the teachings of the mainstream and original Islam. Many Middle Eastern Muslims use the derogatory term Farrakhanism to refer to the Nation of Islam. But it must be noted that

Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, himself said: "Three generation after me, will no longer be of me". This was stated in reference to his Arab bretheren who he saw going astray from Allah's straight path. And look at the Muslim World today; bowing down to the military might of America instead of standing on the firm resolution that there is no God but Allah, as instructed in the holy Qur'An. The only man, today, that stands on this is Louis Farrakhan. And he has no carnal army to back him, yet he stands.

While the group calls its followers Muslims, in reality, they have very little to do with the Arab culture and traditions imposed on the faith of Islam. Islam believes in the total transcendance of almighty Allah, while they teach that black people are gods, under the Supreme God Allah. As stated in the Bible: Ye are all Gods, children of the Most High God. This totally destroys the doctrine and system of white supremacy imposed on the so-called negro in America. Islam maintains universal brotherhood. Islam teaches that prophethood ended with Muhammad ibn Abdullah, more than 1400 years ago. They teach that Farrakhan's teacher, Elijah Muhammad ibn Maryam, is the exalted Christ of the Christians and that Master Fard Muhammad is the long awaited Mahdi of the Muslim World. Islam teaches principles of spiritual and moral decorum such as prayer, fasting, charity, pilgimage, etc., Elijah Muhammad taught the same but gradually introduced them to his people because of the horrific condition they had been placed in by way of their wicked, caucasian slave-masters. Some Middle Eastern Muslims believe Elijah Muhammad and his followers will be severely punished in the Hereafter, however they have made the United States a God besides Allah in their cowardice and lust for worldly and material gain.

Kingturtle 05:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like this last excerpt right here, but I believe it wouldn't have an appropriate place in this article because it focuses more on the Nation of Islam than it doeso n Farrakhan. You could insert it into the Nation of Islam article, however, but anything put into this article would better serve the purposes of the article by being shortened and very brief in describing the Nation of Islam.

[edit] Next Million Man March

Farrakhan is reorganizing the Million Man March in October to mark the 10th anniversary of the march. I went ahead and put it in the article. If anyone objects to it I won't care if you delete it, just thought I'd let you know. Theburninghelm 04 Apr 2005

[edit] Farrakhan as musician

Could we please have some sources for this section? Phrases like:

• ...which was widely seen as...
• Reviews were mixed, but some critics agreed that...

especially need to have some references. -Willmcw 23:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farrakahn as gay icon

An anonymous user keeps inserting a link to Farrakahn as gay icon. I thought it mere vandalism, but this person says he really is. I Googled, and found no support for this. Anyone want to defend the idea that Farrakhan is a gay icon? Let me know, or I'll revert it. IronDuke 05:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.jtf.org/america/america.malcolm.x.homosexual.htm This is mainly information on Malcolm X being a homo-sexual, but it also mentions how Louis Farrakahn had homo-sexual encounters. Louis Farakahn has also upset other conservative black leaders by having gay activists speak at his rallies. 68.252.187.105 16:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for that link. that's a 'hate' site - anything to impugn the character of the persons mentioned appears to be fair game. generally speaking, if a gay person considered someone a gay icon, they would not write pages and pages concerning how evil and horrible homosexuals are. this is obviously vandalism. you can advocate whatever you want elsewhere. you've provided no evidence to support the claim that farrakhan is a 'gay icon'. WP is not an advocacy site.Anastrophe 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a homo-sexual category Farrakahn belongs in? 68.75.169.78 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gay icons don't need to be gay, see Cher. However, I can't imagine that anyone considers Farrakhan to be one. That'd need to be sourced. -Willmcw 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gutter religion, dirty religion, and so on

I have attempted to tighten up this passage -- I think that in such contentious matters we should be as scrupulous as possible, preferring direct quotes over characterizations by commentators, and carefully indentifying commentators when characterizations are used. --HK 14:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that effort, and I extended it further. Charles Bierbauer of CNN never said that Farrakhan created controversy, so I removed that clause. -Willmcw 21:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now cited the quote to CNN, even though CNN cites Reuters -- I couldn't find a direct Reuters cite on the web. I did this because there are evidently disputes about what Farrakhan did and didn't say, and under the circumstances Wikipedia should be circumspect about simply reporting these quotes as fact. I didn't intend to say that "Bierbauer said Farrakhan created controversy" -- that was an artifact from the previous edit that I should have removed. --HK 06:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What disputes? Half the world says that Farrakhan called other groups "bloodsuckers" and I don't see any rebuttal that he didn't. I added a half-dozen cites to show this, then removed them all as redundant. He said it, that much is pretty clear. -Willmcw 09:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Would a link to the Anti-Defamation League's page on Farrakhan's quotes (here) be appropriate as external citation? Given that they are targeted by his diatribes, you could easily consider it a biased source, but I wouldn't think they would change his words. --jhamner 08 May 2006

On a serious note, the UFO stuff would benefit from a direct link to a reference. I am having a hard time believing he would say that and still be taken seriously. Prophet Willie

Done and Done, Prophet

Where did the UFO quotes go? If he said it, I'd like to see that info. --DjSamwise 03:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam Holland 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADL Link

The link to a page of quotes from Farrakhan's speeches compiled by the ADL is perfectly acceptable. First, the ADL is a perfectly credible source, it may have been criticized, but so has the NAACP or the New York Times or just about any other significant organization. Second, the "bias" of the source is irrelevant, the link contains nothing more than quotes taken directly from Farrakhan's speeches which have been printed elsewhere, including in this article. Third, the link is clearly in the external links section, not the references section, links to not need to be from unbiased or uncriticized organizations so long as they are useful and factual which this is. GabrielF 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farrakhan and religion

The item is not Wikipedia:No original research as it is cited. Neither is it a POV as the statements after are simple translation from 1st person to 3rd person.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Muntuwandi 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitic Category

It is neither my intent to defend farrakhan and neither do I condone any form of discrimination, be it racism, anti-semitism or any other ism. But there is problem the anti semitic people category due to its subjective nature. What would be the acceptable criteria to place anyone in the list. Indeed the category has been nominated at least four times for deletion or renaming because of the same problem. The page is currently protected from editing until disputes are resolved which underscores the problem at hand.

You're right -- it would be a mistake to defend Farrakhan. Please don't remove this well-warranted category and replace it with a clear POV fork category. There is no reasonable dispute to listing Farrakhan in this category, and just removing it without any attempt at an explanation is POV pushing and it must end. --Mantanmoreland 03:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The first category is a point of view as mentioned earlier, the category is disabled from protection due to its controversial nature which is indicative of the different opinions that people have regarding who should be on the list or whether the list should exist at all. Whereas the the category second category is undisputable that there are some who believe he is an anti-semite.

Secondly it is not original research if a reputable cited source is included ( of which i hav included 8 different citations).

In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful, we give Him praise and thanks for His goodness and His mercy to the human family. The greatest of His goodness and the most magnificent of His mercy is His guidance that He sends to the human family through the mouths and example of His prophets and His messengers of God. We thank Him for Moses and The Torah. We thank him for Jesus and The Gospel. We thank Him for Muhammad and The Qur'an. Peace be upon these worthy servants of God and all of those messengers and prophets that God has sent to every nation and every people, bringing to them His guidance....

for example if farrakhan says "we thank him for moses and the torah" and an edit reads "farrakhan thanks god for moses and the torah". This is just a translation from 1st person to 3rd person. Not my opinion just from his mouth. if this is not considered by some wikipedians as worthy material it may create an impression that some would like to portray him negatively and selectively remove some of the more positive statements that farrakhan may make.

No, you can't report what you heard him say. That is original research.--Mantanmoreland 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not hear him. It's from reputable news sources like cnn. eg cnn transcript Muntuwandi 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, then it is not OR. But the quoted material is unencyclopedic and still isn't usable. The paragraph of spin is definitely OR. If it is not OR, what reliable source says what you say it says? You can't include a lengthy transcript of a prayer and then slap on a paragraph of your own interpretation, along with a link to the article talk page! Also your edits are obvious, blatant whitewashing and POV pushing.--Mantanmoreland 04:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very relevant as farrakhan is often accused of being anti-christian, anti-semitic and yet in his speeches he often begins by saying the words in "thanking allah" for the principal leaders of the three abrahamic religions. Furthermore as the title heading is "Farrakhan and religion", it is relevant to write about what his philosophy is on world religions.

If anything the few remaining lines quoted here are quite inconsistent with the title heading.

"Louis Farrakhan has also alluded to a figure called "Yacub" (or, Biblically, "Jacob") in regards to whites. According to Farrakhan's mentor, Elijah Muhammad, blacks were "born righteous and turned to unrighteousness," while the white race was "made unrighteous by the god who made them (Mr. Yacub)."

The remaining lines have practically very little mention of farrakhan and any religious philosophy. One could ask for instance what about farrakhan and buddhism or farrakhan and the catholic church or farrakhan and mainstream islam.

This is possibly due to systemic bias Muntuwandi 04:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

The depth and breadth of this article can definitely be improved. Farrakhan has been in the public eye for over 40 years so I believe there is a lot more that can be written about him. So I believe if new material is added, it is detrimental to simply revert back to the same stale version. Rephrasing, paraphrasing or additional information should definitely be welcome. I also feel that having a one dimensional approach by simply focussing on one aspect of farrakhan is unconstructive. For example I have added a few details about his personal life, family etc some wikipedians edit it out. A fundamental part of any biographical article should be personal and family details to get a better understanding of the person involved. Once again simply reverting without adding new material is not going to improve the quality of any article.Muntuwandi 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The family stuff would be okay (with heavy editing -- we aren't concerned about his grandson's b-ball career, for example). If you can find a good source that says, "Farrakhan is religiously very tolerant," that's fine. But trying to demonstrate it yourself by quoting a random speech doesn't do that. But some of your stuff is a good start. I'll try to be more helpful when I have a little more time. IronDuke 03:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think mustapha farrakhan's basketball career is an interesting bit of trivia. As the CBS article stated he is likely to play college basketball and may get some publicity. However his grandfathers name is likely to overshadow his abilities and talent.

It is not my wish to portray "Farrakhan as religiously very tolerant". But I feel that the current article portrays him as religiously very intolerant. He is a controversial character- to some he is an electrifying and charismatic orator with a wise and insighful understanding of race relations. To others he is a crazy bigot. The article in its current state is biased towards portraying him as a crazy bigot. I would like both sides to be portrayed in the article. It is for this reason I try to include some of his positive aspects. For instance Farrakhan has been married for 53 years without scandal. With the breakdown of the american family( single parent households, 50% divorce rate), He is a good example to african americans regarding family values.

I think the article is biased because if an edit is added with positive inclination its seen as POV. But these are just relevant facts.Muntuwandi 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not just blatant POV-pushing and whitewashing of the subject matter, but also the insertion of original research. That's been explained to you time and time again by several editors.--Mantanmoreland 13:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

just because the material has positive things about farrakhan does not make it original research. I think at this stage it is pretty obvious that Mantanmoreland and possibly a few others really do not like farrakhan. I can understand that but one should not let personal feelings obsucure ones judgement and objectivity. I am comfortable criticizing farrakhan and I can praise him for his positive side too. Unfortunately I do not think you have the objectiveness to do the same. Muntuwandi 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an open mind not a close one. I invite anyone interested in this article to make contributions to this discussion page to improve its quality.

What part of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV don't you understand? Your edits in this article are oblivious to those two concepts. At one point you put a references in the article to the talk page, and persisted in doing so for days. You should not edit Wikipedia articles until you come up to speed on basic policies.--Mantanmoreland 13:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

If you could point out sentences that have WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and explain why. I believe I have included material that is cited from reputable sources and is relevant to the article. Yes I did at one point put a reference to the talk page that had more references to external links. I would not have done that if the references I had included were being ignored. for example if farrakhan has been married since 1953- this is not an opinion, point of view or original research. It is a hard fact and is relevant.

The point of this article is not to eliminate any POV but to accurately demonstrate LF's POV without our POV taintig it. SOmetimes accurate, well documented work is very POV, but it shold be his as the subject and not ours as the wikipedians. --DjSamwise 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The subhead Farrakhan and anti-white statements one sided. Wikipedia policy( see neutrality) states "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

I am adding information from the Meet the press interview as it is more inline with NPOV policy. Russert asks Mr. Farrakhan about a variety of controversial statements he has made and farrakhan gives his response. I think this is better than "farrakhan said this" and "farrakhan said that" without getting his responses to those allegations.

If one is disagreable to this, be welcome to add comments to the talk page to help resolve disputes.

Muntuwandi 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm.. If it's a biography we are not to present "both sides" of people's views on the subject. All that were posted were direct quotes of obviously racist statements.--DjSamwise 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

both sides are important because as is common knowledge the press can and often does take things out context for the sake of sensationalism and publicity. I'm not implying that farrakhan did not say any of the things he is accused of but it is important to get his side of the story as well.Muntuwandi 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

His side as you call it doesn't address the issue. He was asked if all white men are devils> He did not confirm nor deny his previously racist position. He instead added that in addition anyone who does evil is just as much a devil. He did not confirm nor deny racism in what you posted. There was no information in such a quote. If there is a quote where he Denies racism, please add that next to the one where he claims it. A man can change but a wiki biography should be an accurate documentation of it, yes?. peace.--DjSamwise 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is well established that has made anti-white statements, and he has made many of them. Stop using "NPOV" as an excuse for POV-pushing and whitewashing.--Mantanmoreland 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe we need a moderator or administrator to look into this article because your language is very harsh and you have no compromise even when I extend an olive branch for discussion. Muntuwandi 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NBC quotes

An extensive list of quotes from NBC was included that needed editing. Among the quotes were a large paragraph on the teachings of The Nation of Islam that Farrakahn from a different source, a pragraph on Farakahn notsaying whether or not hethought all whites were devils and a paragraph on why Farrakahn believes NOI doctrine. I simplified it by removingthe paragraph quoting nation of Islam Doctrine sources, removing the section that didnt say whether or not Farakahn believed all whites were devils and summarized the long paragraph on Farakahn justifying his belief on origins. I kept it NPOV, true to what Farakahn says and on topic. peace. --DjSamwise 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

a blind edit revision was made by Chifumbe without any discussion. Sir, i've noticed a pattern of defending Farrakahn, preferring mild quotes over harsh ones and when placed side by side..some editors here seem to want his politically correct quotes to have the most visibillity. Let's keep this NPOV. At the very least, please discuss before erasing edits.. --DjSamwise 04:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that edits should be discussed. I guess you should also have discussed your proposed edits before removing the nbc quotes. We had been discussing the quotes previously. I am troubled by this article. I think everyone agrees that farrakhan is a controversial leader. According to wikitionary a controvery is a debate, discussion of opposing opinions[10]. In order for this article to be neutral it must include opposing opinions. There is also a tendency of editors to just pick the wackiest things that Farrakhan is accused of saying. This is cherry picking. Please give a more detailed explanation of why the quotes are being removed because they are equally from farrakhan's mouth.I am open to summarizing but not to their removal. Without discussing which points you would like changed and why, we will have to use the version as per last NPOV dispute.Muntuwandi 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks forresponding Chifumbe|Muntuwandi. I removed a quote that didn't pertain to the discussion. The other quotes I made smaller to fit with the previous quotes. There fore, the quotes where he makes a racist of himself are given equal space to the quotes where he doesn't as much. Isn't that what you are asking for? --DjSamwise 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there has been a different misunderstanding as well. The section you are placing your quote on is the section for displaying what the subject has said about race. In your quote he does not say anything on his view of race. He niether confirms nor denies racism in the quote. Perhaps if you feel the quote is valuable, start a new section for it highlighting what you think is being said. But leave the section on Farakan and race about specific quotes of or against racism. Let's not dillute the subject, yes? Thank you and peace. --DjSamwise 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teachings of the Nation Of Islam Quote

This is being removed. There is a page for the NOI, stick to the facts of the page. --DjSamwise 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to note is that "Yakub" is a part of NOI philosophy. Elijah Mohammad, Malcolm x( at one time) and farrakhan all subscribed to that philosophy. Without more information it will appear that these are farrakhan's words alone. This has the effect of portraying him as the only crazy one. I therefore propose to either remove all reference to Yakub and leave them on the NOI page or to include more text.Muntuwandi 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a simple statment like "consistent with NOI teachings, Farakahn believes.. etc. etc." and then refference appropriately. I don't think we don't need to put the whole paragraph just for that. It would consume too much of the reading space for the point IMO.--DjSamwise 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Example: [Consistant with the teachings of the Nation of Islam] Farakahn has [taught about] a figure called "Yacub" (or "Jacob") with reference to whites. [NOI rf][Farakan ref] --DjSamwise 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (personally I think it's not needed but am willing to come to a consencus) Peace. --DjSamwise 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aledged vs documented

Chifumbe|Muntuwandi, If someone makes a statement on race that generates contention and it is documented and cited.. then don't say "He ALLEDGEDLY said" just say "He said" It's well documented and cited that Contentious statements on race have been made so please avoid the poor word choice. --DjSamwise 05:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orator, syntax, and the Joos

Okay, Chifumbe. First, how many people attended an LF rally in 1993 is not interesting, not notable, and not relevant. Also, I believe many more people regard him as a rambling nutcase than they do a persuasive, powerful speaker. Next, the edits I am reverting are poorly worded, verging on semi-literate. To take but one example: "overshadowing" does not mean the same thing as "shadowing." Lastly, there have been numerous attempts to insert borderline antisemitic POV into this article. I assume your part in that is not deliberate but in any case, it's not helping. IronDuke 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke. One of the main reasons farrakhan is famous is because he is a public speaker. To say he is a powerful speaker without some fact to back it up would sound like an opinion( but i would be open to that). Most importantly Time magazine[11] and BBC [12] think he is charismatic speaker. According to Time, he could fill any town hall in Chicago. However being a powerful speaker does not necessarily mean what one says is sensible, moral or just( eg propaganda is often disseminated by powerful speakers)

on syntax. The bulk of this information is paraphrased from the Time magazine article. overshadow or shadow - the thesaurus lists them as synonyms[13]. If you haven't already read the article, I would suggest you do. I am also not too happy with the current syntax eg

"The reporter printed the quote and Jackson was widely criticized and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce "If you harm this brother, it'll be the last one you ever harm."

The sentence has two "and" s, it also contains too much information for one sentence:

• reporter prints quotes
• jackson criticized
• receives death threats
• farrakhan responds
• farrakhans quote.

Finally I think the title for bbc article was very appropriate "Prophet or Bigot". I think this article would be better if it would present the dichotomy that Farrakhan is. To some he is a charismatic leader and to others he is a bigot, a rambling nutcase to use your words[14]. To not show both side would be a disservice to the readersMuntuwandi 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the minor point. Overshadow and shadow are plausible synonyms only in the sense of to dim or darken. When used in the sense of "to follow" (the fourth entry in the link you provided), overshadow, you will note, is not a synonym. You are correct to point out that some find Farrakhan "electrifying." Perhaps we can juxtapose those thoughts with "incoherent" and "rambling." Some sources: [15], [16], [17], [18].

i propose this

• adding that he is an electrifying speaker but not everyone agrees.
• what about the sentence? Muntuwandi 03:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Or we could add that he rambles incoherently, but not everyone agrees. I don't understand what you meant when you wrote "what about the sentence?" IronDuke 15:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

yeh, i'm on Osi fan.

This is the sentence : "The reporter printed the quote and Jackson was widely criticized and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce "If you harm this brother, it'll be the last one you ever harm."

During a discussion with a black reporter, Jackson referred to New York City "Hymietown." Though Jackson thought he was speaking off the record, the reporter printed the quote. Jackson was widely criticized for the slur and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce "If you harm this brother, it'll be the last one you ever harm."

Weird that Osi and Strahan aren't doing more, no? IronDuke 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets add him as a leader in the AA community and an orator in the lead. I really dont think that is a POV discuss. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orator or what

Did you you see him on the tavis smiley show, boy the floor was on fiyah. when ur good no one can take it away from you. Most powerful speech this century —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] One of the longest marriages

List of people with the longest marriages yes Farrakhan made it into the list wow!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This link is irrelevant to the article and was not even inserted in a way that was grammatically correct. Removed. Soonercary 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Million Man March discrepancy

Under the 'Nation of Islam' heading:

"On October 16, 1995 Farrakhan convened a broad coalition of roughly five thousand black men in what many say was the largest march in American history, the hyperbolically named Million Man March. Farrakhan, along with New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and other prominent black Americans marked the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March by holding a second march, the Millions More Movement on October 14, 2005 through October 17, 2005, in Washington.

In a 2005 Black Entertainment Television (BET) poll, Farrakhan was voted the 'Person of the Year'. [8]

In a February 2006 AP-AOL "Black Voices" poll, Farrakhan was voted the fifth most important black leader with 4% of the vote[9].

[edit] Orator

Though controversial, Farrakhan is an electrifying speaker with a powerful allure. In his prime, crowds all around the United States would throng to his speeches for moral uplift and entertainment. His orations typically last up to three hours. His charisma played a significant role in drawing almost a half million people to the million man march[10]."

Roughly 5,000 does not equal almost half a million.

Arinna 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Arinna

"Farrakhan, along with New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and other prominent black Americans marked the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March by holding a second march, the Millions More Movement on October 14, 2005 through October 17, 2005, in Washington."

There is no source for the claim that Sen. Obama was responsible for, or participated in, the Millions More Movement. Sen. Obama is not listed as an organizer in the main Millions More Movement page, so why is he even referenced (without sources) in the sentence?75.51.217.169 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Johnny

[edit] Trying to diminish Farrakhan will not work

Everytime i add anything positive about Farrakhan they delete it, well i have four references to him being a key AA leader, and an orator. This is how Farrakhan is know in the world, not only as a leader of NOI, But why i am happy today is because despite all the "groups" against him, he is one of the most respected leaders in our community and nobody will hide that truth from the world or change how Most AA feel about him. i believe it is racist to try to diminish the glory of African American warriors, they did it with X, they did it with Garvey. key to who Farrakhan is should be in the lead. And i will be expanding the lead just like the lead on everyone else. and notice i am using some of the same sources that slander him which admit to his leadership and popularity.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid POV attributes like "galvanizing" and weasel words like "key leader", especially in the intro. Beit Or 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you have no problem adding it to the ISrael section, so why is it different here. I will change it to leader. Please do not delete it, you dont delete content you improve it. Trying to mask who Mr F is not honest because he is far more than the leader of NOI, and wiki is about truth. He was voted most popular AA last year.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in allegations

In 1994, Farrakhan said in a speech: "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man."[19]

This has been added, is that all he said, but it has been added to slander him.So CNN quote part of a speech where is the rest, i heard the speech thats not where he was going with it. And this is the bio of a living person. On many occasions he said Hitler was "Brilliantly evil" but he is speaking about his ablity to group Germany against Europe, not for killing jews, he has always said this, this is why the tag and weasle tag has been added.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a notable quote from a reliable source; one can find more reliable sources with this same quote. Your reasons for removal are entirely spurious. Beit Or 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADL

Some critics allege the ADL willfully exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism, especially among Muslims. The critics also claim that the ADL defines legitimate criticism so narrowly that even moderate analysis of Israel could be categorized as anti-Semitic. not a neutral source and cannot be used to slander someone. like everyone is a communist and a terrorit :Witch hunt --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just your personal opinion, irrelevant to this article. Beit Or 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it isnt my personal opinion, it is a direct copy and paste, it is a universal critic of the ADL and is very relevant and this source is not Neutral especially in dealing with anti-Zionist. Furthermore it is like quoting any extrem group.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let me break it down

Perhaps the most provocative aspect of Farrakhan's political philosophy is his alleged anti-Semitism, allegations Farrakhan has denied. (THIS IS A POV "PREHAPS NOT ACCORDING TO ANYONE BUT A SELECT GROUP" Prior to 1984 Farrakhan was known for his anti-white rhetoric but had not singled out Jews. The controversies began during the 1984 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson (with the Nation of Islam providing security). During a discussion with a black reporter, Jackson referred to New York City as "Hymietown". THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTISEMITISM, ONLY SUPPORT FOR JACKSON. So why is it here? He is supporting Jackson so what?

PLease be careful as this is a living person and any negative content must only be added under the hightest threshold. You cannot put rumors, associations, broken statements from sources that are hateful of Farrakhan. He is said to be antisemtic and guess where the sources are coming from? Thats like quoting his magazine against Sharon, what do you think he would say. it is not an xtrm source.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at this: Controversial quotes attributed to Farrakhan include:

Farrakhan: "Is the Federal Reserve owned by the government?"

Audience: "No."

What does this have to do with being racist? this is why this section isnt dangerous. Making comments about White people ownership of land in South Africa is not anti-White, PLease just stick to his "antisemitic" statements, those which are clearly alleg, and bring proper sources, not from sites which are obvertly religious or have a political agenda.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the most notable things about Farrakhan is the accusation of anti-semitism. None of this is "rumour". Farrakhan was banned from the UK becasuse of his comments. The quotation about Hitler is undisputed. Farrakhan does not deny that he said it, but rather has "explained" what - he claims - he really meant by it. You are simply censoring material on one of the most notable facts about Farrakhan. Paul B 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

he is most notable for all kinds of things with different people. MOst AA dont care about this accusation, it is not discussed. they care about other things you are using weasle words "one of the most notable" is unencyclopedic and a major statement that you know the minds of all of his supports. He got banned from the UK according to all UK black sources because he would fight the oppressor and cause Africans to rise up. and why is the beginning talking about Jesse Jackson, this is original research and i have to add the tag but i would prefer you remove it, I dont see the link to the statments to support for jackson.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

u r bringing Or and making a case against him, the solution use another quote. If Jews own Hollywood does it make it racist to say so. SA whites own most of SA, it is a fact. I didnt take off everything only ridic remarks which have nothing to do with the argument. If he is anti-semitic then fair is fair, but dont try to build a case with OR and weasle words and fabricating and compiling all kinds of non-related statements that include the word jew.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are talking utter nonsense. I used the word "notable" because it has a specific meaning within Wikipedia. There are no weasel words and no OR. You are just making this up. "All black sources" say he was banned from the UK "because he would fight the oppressor"? You've read them all have you? And what defines a "black source" in your view? It is clearly documented why he was banned. Have you even looked it up? It doesn't matter what you think "most AAs" care about. Your idea about this is not encyclopedic nor is the article about "African American views of Louis Farrakhan as intuited by HalaTruth". Paul B 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I will warn you about wiki policies on Civility policy to other editors. I am glad you see my point. U have just fallen for the same agrument i am against. thanks for jumping in the trap. exactly you cant say things like that. i didnt say anything like that in the article. but to say "he is most notable for speaking blah blah" is no different. How many Black own papers in the UK? okay.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You will not cross out my statements. Referring to opinions as nonsense is not the same as attacking a person. This is not an argument, it's just a stream of consciousness. Paul B 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

U r not allowed to violate civility on wiki pedia, be a professional and show non-emotional restraint. I think your arguments are not well supported. If you need clarity on what can and cannot be said i can show you the policy on civility. It is attacking my logic as being nonsensical and thus attacks me as an editor. can we move on and respect why we are here, when you assume that tone, i can be low and return with anger that is why we are suppose to be civil.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult to debate with you because your arguments are difficult to decipher. There is no dispute that F has been regularly accused of anti-Semitism. There is no dispute that he made these comments. The stuff about Jackson was probably added to provide context - Farrakhan's own comments arose from the war of words initiated by Jackson's "Hymie" remark. It may not be necessary to add this context, but it's difficult to see what's POV about it. Paul B 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont like the jackson thing, it doesnt belong here. I dont like the source from ADL. I see the "hymie" thing on jacksons page--No problem. He is a big man he said it, he said it. F is targeted for Anti-S. but i dont like an over focus on this. everytime he tries to do anything out comes this 1 thing. And i think (personally) the statment about "who owns what" is not anti-S. bad taste-yes. the rest is valid. I personally know he has issues with Jews, so i am not going to argue against that.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

These are just your own evaluations. You may not like something, but when it's notable and well-sourced, it will stay. Beit Or 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil behaviour

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

Rudeness Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap") Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

If someone said you are talking crap how does that make you feel? this is not a valid critic and is weak because it is a blank reply to anything we dont like, without the need for explanation. If ur unclear would you say that to your momma?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why an edit war will happen

THis encyclopedia is open to all to contribute, yet some believe they have a greater right to add and delete content. Valid editos are not allowed to add content. When there is no comprimise and everytime i come back here and find valid dispute tags deleted, worthy objections ignored, then my rights as an quality editor are violated. I have said do not add J Jackson and ^{[original research?]} speculating when Mr F became so-called Anti-S, it is OR blatenly so. It is a speculation, there is no direct link. dispite all of this it continues to be added back by 2 editors. well i just took it out again. i am comprimising, but you cannot have a solution when 1 person is doing all the reasoning.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see very little "reasoning" here. There is no OR when the context is clear, as I have already explained. Jackson made his Hymie remark. Jackson was criticised. Farakhann made a treatening comment in defence of Jackson. He got called a Black Hitler becasue of it and then made his Hitler comment. It is all clearly linked. There is no reason to remove it. By doing so you make it seem as though F's comments came out of nowhere. It serves no useful purpose. Paul B 09:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

THis is Farrakhan not Jackson, it is or there is no source to show this connection, dont you know you are making a timeline, where is the source to say this is the connection? can you not remove a tag when i am disputing a section?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editwarring....

... accomplishes nothing, besides getting stressed and upset. As editors seem not able to find common ground, I have temporarily protected the page. When editors are ready to resume editing, or to challenge the protection, you can place a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

when there is no signs of balance from other editors see above, no comprimise, no ablity to listen, bend a little. this is why edit wars happen. I have made sign contributions to wiki and the above editor is now telling this seasoned editor i am not making sense. i know there is OR in the section, i am right to put tags there but the bully is removing the tags, and telling me unilaterially that i am wrong and he is right. as if he owns wikipedia. with a bio of a living person it is far better to be safe than sorry and we should be careful when adding negative content. a shopping list of things he said about 1 group of people give undue weight to a man with a very long legacy as more than a antisemit,--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You made wholesale deletions of undisputed material and turned the page into something unreadable. You didn't even bother to check up on whether the material was factual. You made wild and unsupported claims about what "black sources" say without providing any evidence at all. Paul B 10:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I cut jackson, u knew my issue, you ignored it, u deleted my tags., all of this is uncivil behavior. If i cut OR and dispute a section are you civil when you continue to restore only your work. This is stubborn minded arrogance. Who are you 2 over ride my tags? A shopping list of a conversation, like a film script doesnt belong in an encyclopedia "the crowd replies" "Farrakhan says" this is unprofessional. All of these are valid points. I have created serious content on wiki, tonnes of content on Black history and here u are trivalising my viewpoints. Dont use pro-Israel sources without also using sources which vindicate him, actually uses more neutral sources not ADL and Villagevoice and Jewsih times, what do you think they will say. Look at Desmond tutu page, these same type of sources said he 2 was antisemitic. inablity to reason, and give up ground is why this page is protected. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Material sourced to rock-solid sources, like CNN, is not original research. Your problem seems to be with the facts rather than with sources. Beit Or 11:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem is clearly outlinned above. The issue is beyond source, show me the proof of the jesse link to antisemitism? it is or. who said saying Jews control the federal reserve is anti-S? Conspiracy theory about 911 is not anti-S neither is his statments. there is no balance in the section. listing a speech is silly esp when the content is not relevant "who own hollywood, who own the federal reserve" so what? "who owns the oil" muslim, is not anti-islamic. esp if it is a fact. the right wing pro-zionist voice is far to dominant. even tutu is anti-semitic. yet i saw your behaviour in racism so i know your def of "facts".--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewey, Kant, Hegel?

Sorry to bust up the edit war ya'll seem to be having, but I'd like to request any possible explanation for the included quote about random European philosophers. It's just plain weird, and it'll probably keep me up late at night thinking about what it could possibly mean. I suggest someone delete it or make some effort to explain it. (For the love of God, please explain it.) It's bound to cause similar suffering in others. Seriously, can someone explain it? Please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.127.216 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Farrakhan is just trying to sound intellectual. I don't know about Dewey, but Kant and Hegel certainly did think that black Africans were inferior. Paul B 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of Felix Mendelssohn is misleading

The article describes Felix Mendelssohn as a "Jewish convert to Christianity composer." Despite being an inelegant sentence on its own, this is does not completely describe Mendelssohn's religion. At around age 7, Mendelssohn's father converted to Lutheranism and had his children baptised as such. The fact that Mendelssohn was born Jewish is often brought up when the Farrakhan performances are discussed, but it should be noted that neither the composer nor historians label him a Jewish or Christian composer (in fact, very very few composers are known by their religious affiliations). This issue of Mendelssohn as a Jewish convert was manufactured for the Farrakhan discussion and should be noted as such. -- Sstrader 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The religious reference is not only misleading but gratuitous.--Mantanmoreland 14:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category to add...

Whenever this article is available for editing, would someone please add Category:Charismatic religious leaders? He is already described as charismatic in the article, and has been described as such by many sources...I'll list a few of them here:

BBC -- "He supports African-Americans having their own nation and is regarded as one of the most controversial and charismatic African-Americans alive." -- "In this period of testing, you can prove to the world that the Nation of Islam is more than the charisma, eloquence and personality of Louis Farrakhan," he said. [20]

NY Times -- "Louis Farrakhan, the departing leader of the Nation of Islam, gave what was billed as his last major public address here on Sunday, with his extended illness throwing into sharp focus the question of whether the group will shift toward more mainstream Islamic teachings to survive once it loses its central charismatic figure." -- "But Ishmael Muhammad responds that the era of charismatic leaders is over — that one main goal of the Nation is teaching people to be self-sufficient, particularly in their relationship to God." [21]

Washington Post -- "Farrakhan, 73, recently relinquished his duties and turned control over to an executive panel of trusted lieutenants, exhorting them to move the Nation of Islam forward and prove that it is more than the charisma and influence of one man." -- "Others outside the organization wondered whether it could last without Farrakhan's charismatic influence." [22]

--WassermannNYC 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources indicate that he is charismatic in the Weberian sense of the word which differs significantly from the common, loose usage of the word charisma. Andries 14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Link to Interview Transcript

In 1998, former The Wall Street Journal editor Jude Wanniski attempted to foster dialogue between Farrakhan and his critics. He arranged for Farrakhan to be interviewed by reporter Jeffrey Goldberg who had written for the Jewish weekly, The Forward and The New York Times. Since the extensive interview was never published in either publication, Wanniski decided to post the transcript on his website in the context of a memo of Senator Joseph Lieberman. The following are links to the interview, parts one, two and three:

Why is the link missing?

216.226.231.132 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)