Talk:Ajamu Baraka/Archive 1

Archive 1

From zero to 60 in 12 hours

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

Well now it's happening again. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, your edit of my addition of Baraka's argument seemed unnecessary & wordy.

sashirolls: "Baraka notes the contrast with the simultaneous international support for elections in war-torn Ukraine. "

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

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

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

I'm not sure what you're confused about. Could you ask a more helpful question?

SashiRolls (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. I've never seen as substance-free and incomprehensible responses in my time editing on wikipedia. Why don't you respond to my points in a coherent manner?

Are there any other editors reading this? Can you please provide your input? I can't deal with this person. She/He's making this wikipedia page a mess on his/her own, holding up edits and just posting gibberish. He/She just deleted Baraka calling Obama "an uncle tom president" for spurious reasons. Pinging other regular users of politicians' pages for some feedback: User: Neutrality, User: VictoriaGrayson, User: Activist, User: Volunteer_Marek, User: Gouncbeatduke Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally I avoid political pages like the plague, but I was curious about Baraka, and so I took the time to follow the links so as to learn more about the person. When I contacted you directly, I saw on your talk page that you were also active on the Jill Stein page and calling for people to defend your formulations there. I would draw the attention of those who might come to look into this that most of the relevant discussion is above in the NPOV dispute section, which section is what led me to begin cleaning up a bit in the first place. I am open to discussion of course, but let's be clear: we're talking about quoting 3 words out of a 40 word sentence while providing no context.

SashiRolls (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest at this point that the involved editors (Snooganssnoogans and SashiRolls) consider posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I did a fair amount of initial editing to this article, but the contentious sections have gone beyond the point where I feel I can help. Funcrunch (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll let snoogans take that step, since he is the one with a complaint. Here is the link to the full citation so it doesn't get lost:

SashiRolls (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Weasel words and misrepresentation.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and another problem at several points in the article is that Baraka's claims are given in Wikipedia voice rather than properly attributed as his opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed articles

Many of the articles cited have been removed from his website. They should be replaced with links to archives or to articles quoting them. 166.170.220.255 (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Baraka's web site has been overhauled and links reorganized. His articles can still be found under the blog link. Honestly though, I think these self-published blog posts probably shouldn't be in the article. There are enough secondary sources containing his writing and information on him. Funcrunch (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've now replaced the remaining links to Baraka's blog posts with non-primary sources containing the same information. Funcrunch (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Random unsourced birthdates

Anons have now added unsourced and apparently random birth years to this article four times (1, 2, 3, 4). I don't know if this merits requesting temporary semi- or pending-changes protection, but it's annoying. Funcrunch (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the unexpurgated quote (you lopped off the "even though"): "Even though it's very clear that ISIS could not have developed in Syria without the direct and indirect support from the US and its allies in the region, [...] ISIS also has their own agenda." This is generally considered misquoting to take a subordinate clause and turn it into an independent clause. Please be more careful in your work, which is, of course much appreciated, as long as it's honest!

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

I hope a fresh pair of editing eyes can look at this part of the page and eliminate what seems superfluous. I would not have edited had the page not smelled so strongly of half-quotes... and as a result I wouldn't have learned nearly as much about the Green's VP candidate! I felt it important to leave the original citations (despite the fact that they were often just incomplete parts of sentences), since I presume they were put there as a challenge, to be defended or contextualized: this is why there is still the somewhat trivial segment on the "false flag" in foreign policy with a very exact quote and anecdote from the interview. ^^

SashiRolls (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed the name-calling, pending complete citation. Again, I've found the same editor quoting 3 words from a very long sentence without providing context. Is this wikipedia? I've made clear in my edit that if the full quote were added that would satisfy my wikipedian desire for neutrality. If the editor (snoogans again I think) wishes to argue that the sole fact that Baraka called Obama an "Uncle Tom president" is more important than why, that could be a subject for this page...

SashiRolls (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating developments. It would seem that some facts are more important than others to people who edit this page. 1) The factual elements concerning the subjects Baraka has written about were deleted on the claim that they were unsourced. This is an error insofar as the sentence was built based on careful study of the titles and content of his articles in the cited source (his articles page where he collects the articles he has published). Why is Politico's decision to call him a "fringe candidate" more interesting than the subjects he has written about in a section titled "Writings"? ^^

2) It has been claimed that "points out the contrast" is not a neutral formulation. This strikes me as a very odd claim. Politico calling him a "fringe candidate" is -- by contrast -- considered to be a sufficiently neutral formulation for inclusion in lieu of a factual summary of his writings.

3) The "false flag" regarding the Ukrainian airplane was not the main focus of the interview, and if one goes to the primary source, it is very clear that Baraka said "We'll see." indicating that he was not committed, two days after the event, to the story of the "false flag" which the previous guest and the interviewer were pushing and which did -- admittedly -- seem plausible to him. (Cf. interview from 1:30) As he says "it could in fact be an accidental shootdown" remembering the US shootdown of an Iranian airliner in 1988. It is possible that since then his "we'll see" / "we're gonna see" attitude has changed, but the evidence presented does not prove this claim. It is interesting that the other subjects of conversation during that interview: the oil in the Levant, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the difficulty of speaking truth to power were deleted, though they are verifiably contained in the interview. This deletion is, it seems to me, far from being an example of neutrality. That said, I have neither the time nor energy to ensure the neutrality of this page, as I have nothing to gain from doing so, other than the hope that Wikipedians would move beyond the typical tactic of seeking to find "incendiary" statements that can be presented out of context (without including the rest of the sentence which explains the point of the positions taken). As Baraka has said, it is very difficult to "speak truth to power". It is interesting likewise to note that the article from Politico does not cite any sources for the "false flag" issue. The only verifiable source is the one in which Baraka says that we'll have to wait and see (1:29-1:40). It is entirely possible that the Wikipedia oversimplification is the source for the Politico reporter.

SashiRolls (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

After reflection, I have decided to support the user calling to delete the reference from Politico saying that Baraka has long held "fringe views". It was written by a young free-lance journalist who chose not to include any information in his article about Baraka having been honored by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, or having won numerous awards for his human rights work. Contrary to what User: Neutrality has said there are numerous secondary sources (see especially the reference to the Woodhull Foundation currently ref #3, where his awards are listed), and this free-lance journalist is not very credible given that he didn't do much research at all concerning Baraka (who was not the main subject) for his op-ed. (very important: remember that magazines hire people to write articles supporting specific points of view, and that the article in question is clearly an op-ed (cf. its title)). I thank the Wikipedian who originally raised this concern. SashiRolls (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• retain that that Politico statement, wait thru another couple of news cycles, because some truly fringe stuff is starting to emerge. Here: [3] is a RS dated 10 August. It shows that Baraka alleged that Bashar al-Assad was strongly supported by non-Alawhites, and links to Baraka's fringy/conspiracy theory essay on the Syrian revolt. Then states that Baraka has an essay in a new book of essays edited by "Holocaust denier and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett." The book in which Baraka has an essay, Another False Flag? Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernadino, is a paradigmatic fringe/conspiracy theory - alleging that the paris attacks were false flag ops. I WP:CRYSTAL predict that within a few days someone publishing in a RS will have scoured that Syria essay, read his chapter, and probaly found more of this fringe/conspiry stuff written by him. The simple act of agreeing to publish an essay in such a volumne establishes Baraka as WP:FRINGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• E.M.Gregory Please note that your vote, to be counted, probably needs to be placed below. I remember how my Armenian colleague from Syria was explaining to me in 2011-2012 how biased the Qatari Al Jazeera was for encouraging the West to remove Assad during the uprising. At the time I was convinced of the Al Jazeera line (unaware at the time of their own interests in seeing him toppled) and so I was very surprised by my friend telling me that all of his community was extremely upset at the international outcry against Assad. Ah, memories... I hope I'm not suddenly a conspiracy theorist because I had a Syrian Armenian colleague that told me the world was not as simple as it seemed on TV. SashiRolls (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFORUM, folks. That applies to small text too. Funcrunch (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The point of course is that Baraka claiming that non-alawite Syrians were not happy about the West's decision concerning Assad is not evidence of anything like holocaust denial or claiming the moon-landing was staged. Sorry for the conversational tone while making this point. SashiRolls (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Political science professor?

At present we have an assertion that:

• "Baraka has taught political science at Clark Atlanta University, Spelman College, and other academic institutions."

• The teaching jobs at Spelman and Clark Atlantic require substantive sourcing. At present, it is sources to a canned bio echoed by some of the nonprofits he works with/for. We can't assert that a guy "has taught political science" at Clark & Spelman "and other academic institutions" unless we can find a better source.
• note that it does happen that writers, even writers who did not attend university, to teach writing. (Ta-Nehisi Coates has taught at MIT without holding an advanced degree, in fact, I don't think he finished the B.A) Also, Politicians are often become professors (Michael Dukakis). We just need a reliable source, one with details of the job he held at these schools.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note that searches of spellman.edu [4] and cau.edu [5] come up blank.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Checking by searching Spelman + "Ajamu Baraka" in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Atlanta Daily World, and The Atlanta Voice. found nothing at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

of Baraka's own website for Spelman [6] and "Clark Atlanta" [7] on Baraka's own website ajamubaraka.com also came up blank. This is not to say that he did not teach ehre at some point and in some sense, only that it does not appear either sufficiently notable or sufficiently well sourced to be on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm strongly inclined to dump this given the lack of any corroborating source. It may be the case that "taught" = "gave a guest lecture a few times." Neutrality^talk 14:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete: "scholar, professor"

At present, the article reads:

• TeleSur writer Elliot Gabriel said of Baraka: "[H]e is an accomplished Black scholar, professor, and human rights advocate who has tirelessly fought for the rights of working people in the United States and throughout the world." sourced to Telesur, a government mouthpiece that is not a RS.

• I find no corroborating evidence that Baraka holds an advanced degree, has published in scholarly journals, or has ever held the title "professor." I am removing this assertion on the grounds that it is not reliably sourced, and cannot be corroborated. If RS evidence of a career as a "scholar, professor" is found, we can put it in the article at that point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

see references #2, #3. The question of deleting this reference has been open to discussion on this page and no consensus has been reached. Rather than trying to delete what you don't like, how about if you go searching for RS which contradict those in the article if you believe that there is a conspiracy afoot and that the foundations are lying about his credentials. Who knows, maybe you're right, but the burden of proof is clearly on you to disprove their claims.SashiRolls (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Those references are to brief bios on the websites of organizations with which he works. They are not secondary, nor corroborated and not sufficient to establish that he is either a professor or a scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have searched for RS on his teaching at colleges, and not found it. @SashiRolls:, you are being tendentious, why should anyone publish an article stating the Baraka is not a professor? If he is either a scholar or a professor, all that you have to do is to bring reliable sources stating that he held a teaching post at such and such a college, holds the PhD, publishes regularly with an academic press or in recognized scholarly journals. Scholars and professors are not hard to sniff out. Find such evidence or take the statement off the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am assuming that the reputable sources (i.e. one of the five most influential policy thinktanks in DC, and a site that has honored him with which he is not associated (Woodhull) in question are not deliberately lying about the positions he has held. (assume good faith) Note also that the word "scholar" does not imply any particular institutional affiliation or publication history: [[8]]. SashiRolls (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No one is accusing anyone of lying. In the real world, errors, or careless rephrasing, creeps into bios, that then get echoed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Neutrality: please evaluate this one sentence. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC) also @MjolnirPants:@Namiba and Funcrunch:

• Claims require evidence. The lack of a claim does not require direct evidence of the claim's untruthfulness. If there are no reliable sources establishing that the person is a scholar and professor, then by definition, the questionable source which makes reference to him being those things is unreliable, and should not be used. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Right, the Telesur journalist is corroborated by reliable sources whom we should not assume are mistaken. SashiRolls (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: What reliable sources support the claims that he is a scholar and a professor? If there are such sources, then the claim is acceptable, given that TeleSUR is a notable media outlet. However, if these sources do not directly and clearly support those claims, then there is no policy-based reason for inclusion, and a valid policy-based reason for exclusion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: User:Neutrality and User:E.M.Gregory are of the opinion that TeleSUR is not a notable media outlet (with which I -- like you apparently -- disagree), though they've gathered no support for this view on the Wikipedia Reliable Sources notice board. Because it is admittedly quite hard to track down direct institutional evidence, I have decided to wait until further evidence should surface before restoring it, based on the fact that Google turns up 88 strangely identical mentions of his having taught political science at Clark Atlanta University and Spelman College. (as noted in references #2 and #3) SashiRolls (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that we should delete the TeleSur references entirely, as Telesur is not a reliable source, particularly on this subject. As E.M.Gregory quite properly notes, TeleSur is not a reliable source because it is Venezuelan state-operated TV, a regime mouthpiece identified by experts as Bolivarian propaganda. I've actually brought this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#TeleSur English; @VictoriaGrayson, MjolnirPants, and E.M.Gregory:, if you'd like to add comments there, please feel free. I feel strongly that we should get this nonsense (which is not encyclopedic, but promotional) off this page. And it appears we have a rough consensus to do so, given that only one editor supports this source and a number of others oppose its use. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That "number of others" is exactly 2, you and E.M.Gregory. And two is more than one, unless we count MjolnirPants saying it's a notable source as s/he did above. Then it's 2:2. SashiRolls (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I explicitly called it a questionable source and said that it appears to be an entirely unreliable source, to which you responded by saying the claim was corroborated by other sources. I asked which other sources, and you responded by declaring me to be on your side. To be clear: I am not. I favor removal of the claim, as I don't find it to have originated from a reliable source. So that number of others is actually 3, not 2. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait... you said above it was a "notable source". I am speaking of their desire to claim that TeleSUR is a propaganda instrument, which I gather you do not agree about. SashiRolls (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Oz is a notable source of medical information. That doesn't do anything towards making him a reliable source of medical information. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete Political science professor

Deleting the following sentence:

• "Baraka has taught political science at Clark Atlanta University, Spelman College, and other academic institutions."

See sourcing efforts above. It can be rephrased and/or restored if sources supporting the assertion that Baraka "taught political science" at Clark or Spelman.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I support removal of this, given the discussion at the section above. I also note another problem with the text, apart from the sourcing problems: "teach" is very vague here; it could mean he was (1) a graduate student teaching assistant; (2) a guest lecturer; (3) an adjunct professor; (4) an un-tenured instructor; or (5) a tenured professor. The latter seems unlikely as one would expect there to be firm sources (e.g., an institutional biography) to support it. Neutrality^talk 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I also support removal.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Progress

This page has grown. Relative size of VP candidates pages: Kaine: 131K, Pence: 126K, Weld: 45K, Baraka 24K. Since the other three are only politicians and not human-rights activists or scholars, there's still a long way to go... but slowly and surely, progress is being made. An excellent short-term goal would be to make the article (23K) longer than the talk page (48K).

SashiRolls (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Article quality is not measured in length. The amount of source material on Kaine, Pence, and Weld — all of whom have held multiple public offices and are important figures — is much larger than that for Baraka, and so their biographies will naturally be largely and more detailed than the Baraka biography. Neutrality^talk 14:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but for the moment this article is not of high quality because it contains a number of ad hominem attacks on its subject, some of which have been added by people who are extremely active on competing politicians pages. I believe you for example have added over 30K of text to the article on Tim Kaine. Am I wrong? SashiRolls (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

POV template

I am removing it again. Because the sourcing is solid, as per discussions above. User:SashiRolls please read WP:OWN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that a good deal of the material now on the page are primary, unreliable, or insufficient to support the notability needed to include a particular text on the page. And are therefore should probably be removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You should not have removed the template for a second time. (ref) Reinstating it as long as the Gawker, Politico, Tablet smear statements are in the article and at least 3 people other than you and Neutrality have stated they think they are fair citations in an article that is not about Barrett, Soral or Atzmon. SashiRolls (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please specify precisely what sources you pject to as POV?.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I am ask because Tablet (magazine) and Politico are well-regarded, mainstream media. Since these are the sources you are describing as POV, your tag is inappropriate and should be removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. It's not a question of the source magazine, but of the citations as I said above. The article "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein" is obviously not going to have a neutral POV. That is the source of the ad hominem attacks that Neutrality has chosen to include on the page (the sort of low quality article that gets repackaged in Jihad Watch). Similarly the article equating the Green Party with "kookiness" is obviously not a balanced source. As it happens those articles were in magazines you consider "mainstream". Fact is they sound like they are muck-raking to me... given the smear quotes and the clearly slanted titles. SashiRolls (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

That said, as long as you agree not to remove the titles of those articles from the body of the text (thereby warning the the reader of the bias of the sources), I would not be opposed to lifting the NPOV if others agree. The anonymous edits yesterday added enough solid sourcing that I think the article is now considerably more balanced (and interesting ^^) than it was when last I was involved. SashiRolls (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. I am removing the tag now. On the grounds that you are treading very heavily on WP:OWN, that Tablet (magazine) is widely recognized as mainstream and reliable, and, as you point out, copious RS now exist on Baraka more controversial publicaitons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard - TeleSur

I have posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding the use of TeleSur English. I do not think that use of this source (which is well known as Bolivarian propaganda) to provide a laudatory quote about Baraka is encyclopedic or appropriate in any way. Neutrality^talk 15:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As noted earlier, after User:snooganssnoogans first posted that article to this page the day it was published, it is interesting that no objection was raised to parts of the article used to criticize Baraka, but now that it is being used to say something positive it is suddenly problematic. I am not quite sure why the publication owned by the son of Texas billionaire Joe Allbritton (Politico) would be any more neutral than a media outlet (teleSUR) founded to counter the power of the media owned by billionares in Latin America. This is why personally, I think both the Politico article and the Telesur article should be decided together and why I had originally deleted both, together, in the interest of impartiality. SashiRolls (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your political views are obvious to all, but really immaterial. There is no logical comparison between Politico (which is financially and editorially independent of the government) and Telesur (which is state-owned, state-managed, and established specifically as a propaganda outlet). Neutrality^talk 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So the BBC, France 2, 3, 24, PBS and Al Jazeera are all inappropriate sources, whereas Fox is unassailable, do I understand you correctly? ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you do not. The BBC, PBS, etc. are editorially independent of the government. Telesur is explicitly not. Neutrality^talk 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "La Nueva Televisora del Sur (teleSUR, English: The New Television Station of the South) is multi-state funded, pan–Latin American terrestrial and satellite television network sponsored by the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia that is headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela " Your argument claiming that TeleSUR is not independent of the Venezuelan government is unclear, given that it is sponsored by 6 governments to provide a balancing perspective in a particularly oligarchic market (you might like to learn more here). SashiRolls (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is bordering on being obtuse:

• "Venezuela currently holds a 51 percent stake in Telesur." (Center, Univ. of Texas at Austin).
• Hayden (American University professor of communications): p. 143: "Telsur has since been described as a 'subtle public diplomacy tool of the Venezuelan government' ... While Telesur may effectively function as a mouthpiece for Venezuelan news framing, it is also conceived as a intergrative cultural and political resource ... Telesur is both an instrument of asymmetric confrontation with the United States and a facilitator of geopolitical integration."
• Rory Carroll (journalist and Chávez biographer), p. 95: "Then, from around 2007, Telsur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez. It was part of a strategy of 'communications and information hegemony' enunciated by Andrés Izarra, the information minister. 'He installed himself in Telesur and took the reins,' said [Aram] Aharonian [the first director general of Telesur]. 'For him it wasn't about promoting a Latin American identity and doing something different with television, but serving Chávez's domestic agenda and being a political instrument. That meant propaganda as rolling news. The same garbage as the enemy but from the other side."

No, we are not going to use Venezuelan state-sponsored propaganda's laudatory quotes on this article about a U.S. political figure. It's unnecessary, encyclopedic, and uninformative. Neutrality^talk 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you're arguing about this; I've said I did not oppose removing the quote because of the difficulty verifying Baraka's academic positions above. In fact, it was another user who introduced the Telesur article, and it is still being cited (fn 37) on the page. Regarding your claim of Chavez' interventionism nearly a decade ago, I'm pretty sure you're aware that Chavez is now dead and that his successor, Nicolas Maduro, has bigger things to worry about than how Telesur journalists write about 3rd party Vice Presidential candidates in US elections. Remember, while en.wikipedia was created in the US, US political opinions should not be the measure by which reliability should be judged, lest it become "a subtle diplomacy / electoral tool". Thanks for your response, but I remain unconvinced regarding your call for a blanket rejection of the source, though, again, I have agreed to removing the citation in question. SashiRolls (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is this guy?

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

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

I find it odd that he seems to have appeared a fully developed adult sometime after 2005. I want to support Stein, but really need to know a lot more about this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.154.219 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include the Politico quotation regarding Baraka's writings and political views?

There is a clear consensus to include the highlighted quote in the "views and writings" section. The consensus is against the alternate proposal. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Shall the highlighted quote be included or excluded from the "views and writings" section?

Writings by Baraka have appeared in Black Agenda Report, Common Dreams, Dissident Voice, Pambazuka News, and CounterPunch, and other media outlets. Politico Magazine reports that Baraka "has a long history of fringe statements and beliefs."

References

Neutrality^talk 01:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Include. Under the WP:FRINGE policy, we cannot repeat Baraka's views (such as his belief that the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was a "false flag") without also including well-sourced material that indicates that many of these views are fringe theories. Moreover, the Politico article is one of the very few secondary source that summarizes, or gives a general statement, about the body of Baraka's work. The source is a good one for American politics — it is a long-form journalism/analysis piece published in Politico - i.e., not an opinion column, editorial, or op-ed. There is no suggestion that the characterization is unfair. Neutrality^talk 01:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I am pinging the most recent logged-in users who have edited the article or this talk page: @Snooganssnoogans:, @SashiRolls:, @Funcrunch:, @Volunteer Marek:, @VictoriaGrayson:. Neutrality^talk 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I've left a message at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, soliciting wider comment. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have a strong opinion on the fringe policy here, but the opening paragraphs and even the title of the referenced piece in Politico read as anything but neutral on the subject of the Green Party. I don't think this is the best source to cite to make the case that Baraka holds fringe beliefs. Funcrunch (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Political piece to me reads like a standard style of contemporary political journalism: knowing, ironic, mocking, somewhat in-your-face. It is not an opinion piece nor do I read it as biased. It's just the way they write inside the beltway now. Pieces in this style do tend to feel biased when they are about a candidate a reader supports, and, presumably, also to people who don't read Politico and similar publications often. But it is a profile of the Green party Presidential nominee and VeeP, and, style aside, Politico is a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, per assumptions stated about my "vote" (RfCs are supposed to be discussions to reach consensus, not votes, correct?): I am undecided on whether WP:FRINGE applies to the views held by Ajamu Baraka. Separately, unlike Neutrality, I believe the referenced Politico article is more of an editorial/opinion piece rather than simply an analysis. That doesn't disqualify it being a reliable source in general, but is not a great source for establishing that Baraka holds fringe views. Funcrunch (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

my apologies, I misunderstood the process, did not realize that there was a formal voting mechanism when the subject came up as I've never had to be involved in such arbitration before. SashiRolls (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. I also would note that since this is a biography of a living person, we have a special obligation to be sure that a person honored in 1998 by the UN Secretary General should not be treated summarily as a "fringe view" holder.SashiRolls (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that someone was honored by an important person a decade ago does not mean that he cannot also hold fringe views. Neutrality^talk 02:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, reading the op-ed, you will note that there is only one paragraph concerning Baraka with *absolutely no* references whatsoever. SashiRolls (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise would be that you start a section "post-nomination" articles, in which all of the young journalists' articles that have been commissioned can be put. Again, the radio show in which this evidence of his "false flag" claim exists is much less clear than you would have us believe. SashiRolls (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

also, the original call for its deletion is relevant to this discussion: 18:41, 9 August 2016‎ 74.72.224.235 (talk)‎ . . (17,552 bytes) (-398)‎ . . (→‎Views and writings: deleted sentence about what "Politico" thinks. It's general and vague and why is their opinion privileged? Just let people read the citations and decide for themselves.) (undo)

current vote: 3 against inclusion, 1 for (if I may include the original call to remove your addition). SashiRolls (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, there's you, one neutral editor, and myself. Not '3-1.' The anonymous IP editor has not weighed in. And what does the age of the journalists have anything to do with anything? Neutrality^talk 02:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood the mechanism. Currently it would appear that everyone agrees it could be included, though two people in the discussion do not see it as a reliable source. So far there have been three include votes and one move to a "see also" or "post-nomination" article section. The person originally requesting the deletion has not yet participated in the debate, and so far no response has been made to the compromise position that the quote be moved. If a more substantial and balanced article turns up on this so-called WP:FRINGE (which refers again primarily to scientific theories, not political opinions, except for things like holocaust denial...), that would, of course be a different question. Here, again, there is one sentence in the article about Mr. Baraka (other than the one stating he has been chosen as the VP candidate for the party), and you have cited it. Regarding "young freelance writer" it was mentioned to point out that the guy is just making a living with the commissions that are offered him without necessarily having any (special) expertise on the question. SashiRolls (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're counting me as one of the "two people in the discussion [who] do not see it as a reliable source", in my recently added comment, I explicitly said the Politico article being (in my opinion) editorial in nature did not mean it was an unreliable source. I just feel it is not a great source for establishing that Baraka holds fringe beliefs. The presumed age and payment arrangements of the writer are irrelevant here. Funcrunch (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. You said it did not seem to you to be a neutral source. I mispoke. I consider neutral and reliable in this context as synonyms, though you're right, perhaps I shouldn't. In any case, I've had enough. I agree, new blood is needed on this page. (ps: a sentence beginning with an adverbial time clause is not a run-on... the result is just long. I'm an English teacher, despite my (sometimes) wretched grammar.) ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's just beyond me why we're even discussing whether this man holds fringe beliefs. We have a reliable secondary source and Baraka's page here is full of statements that are by any standard considered fringe. I mean, the guy calls Obama an uncle Tom president, says he's a servant of white power and holds conspiratorial beliefs. Is anyone seriously going to argue that these are beliefs that are standard in US political discourse? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether these views rise to the levels of the examples on the WP:FRINGE page, which include Holocaust denial and a faked moon landing. This is why I'd like to see a better source than the Politico article, which openly mocks the Green Party convention in its opening paragraphs and doesn't go into detail about Baraka's views. Funcrunch (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with Baraka (and Jill Stein for that matter until very recently) is that there simply isn't going to be much coverage of these individuals from reliable secondary sources. I think with the Politico article and just common sense dictate that these are fringe beliefs. Calling Obama an uncle tom president, calling the Assad regime legitimate, incendiary remarks about Sanders and his supporters, and the false flag remarks should be sufficient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of politicians have made negative remarks about Sanders and his supporters, so that's hardly a good argument for WP:FRINGE. And I disagree that "common sense" can override the need for more reliable secondary sources in this case. But I've said enough on this issue. I'd like to hear from more editors who haven't weighed in yet. Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've heard anyone say that Sanders is "controlled by dominant forces with an interest in keeping us all stupid" and that he is normalizing white supremacy. This is not standard political discourse by any measure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include - Whitewashing violates NPOV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• The anonymous editor deleted your addition in the first place. Like I said if you wish to create a section, you are more than welcome to do so. At this point, the choice is either to include both Politico and Telesur or to rely on more reputable sources such as the institutional one I already mentioned: http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/about-us/advisory-council/ajamu-baraka-ga/

• I honestly do not understand your motivations. User:VictoriaGrayson, could you please cite what Baraka says concerning the downed aircraft, so we know you've evaluated the "evidence" presented, as I have done? (to help you, as I was not helped, the relevant discussion is from around 1:30-1:40) Thanks. SashiRolls (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Also, User:Neutrality claims that "many" of Baraka's views are fringe views. What are the other fringe views? (out of curiosity) In my view, it's pretty much impossible to have been on all the boards he has been on and be accused of holding "fringe views", which are defined as unscientific on the relevant wikipedia page, not simply views that are not necessarily held by the majority of white middle-class Americans.SashiRolls (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:VNT SashiRolls. We must go by sources, not your personal opinions.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So we are required to include both the Telesur article and the "kooky" article which contains no sourcing only affirmations, instead of relying on reputable and verifiable sources, as I understand it. For the moment then there are 2 voices in this discussion that see the source as unreliable as well as one voice which originally deleted it, against the original editor who added the article... and as far as I can ascertain I may be the only one who has actually listened to what Baraka said. Could you explain how "fringe" is defined in relation to politics at Wikipedia, because the WP:FRINGE policy clearly seems to be most concerned with science, not politics. SashiRolls (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What are you calling kooky? The Politico article that you are trying to eliminate?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:VictoriaGrayson Thank you. The page you cited is quite clear. Giving undue weight to an op-ed which cites no sources and represents a view in contrast to the published views of a number of universities, publishers, human rights organizations, and foundations (up to and including the UN Secretary General) is a "fringe view" and should not be given untoward weight. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

What I am calling the "kooky" article is the article titled "What If the Green Party Stopped Being Kooky and Started Getting Real?", which User:Neutrality has mistakenly characterized as an objective piece when it is an unsourced opinion piece written by a free-lance writer. SashiRolls (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to fit with my intuitive suggestion (after years of Wikipedia editing) that this article could be placed in a see also section if it is worth inclusion at all... SashiRolls (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include that that Politico statement, however, there now is a second RS that should also be included; some indisuptably fringe stuff is starting to emerge. Here: [9] is a RS dated 10 August. It shows that Baraka alleged that Bashar al-Assad was strongly supported by non-Alawhites, and links to Baraka's fringy/conspiracy theory essay on the Syrian revolt. Then states that Baraka has an essay in a new book of essays edited by "Holocaust denier and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett." The book in which Baraka has an essay, Another False Flag? Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernadino, is a paradigmatic fringe/conspiracy theory - alleging that the paris attacks were false flag ops. I WP:CRYSTAL predict that within a few days someone publishing in a RS will have scoured that Syria essay, read his chapter, and probaly found more of this fringe/conspiry stuff written by him. The simple act of agreeing to publish an essay in such a volumne establishes Baraka as WP:FRINGE. We should expand on this topic as more secondary, RS analysis of Baraka's views emerge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

you may only vote once. SashiRolls (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. E.M.Gregory has only "voted" (note that this isn't a vote) once. He's supported inclusion of the Politico text as I drafted it, and opposed your "move" proposal above. These are entirely consistent... Neutrality^talk 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include That section provides extensive coverage of the fringe views in question. Including the quote helps to introduce the reader to that coverage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• I withdraw the following suggestion and suggest that we leave the paragraph in its current state. So far, I'm the only one to have supported the anonymous editor's view that this citation is unnecessary / superfluous / injurious, etc. There has been enough time for people to weigh in, and experienced editors seem to be unanimous that deletion of the attack is not necessary or desirable despite the special biography of living persons requirements. I don't see much point wasting any more time on this. I am pleased to see the evolution of the page in general. It seems that we have together increased the neutrality of the page, now that more complete citations have been added (which should continue) and more neutral formulations have been found. Thanks, it seems to me, are due in particular to User:Funcrunch in this latter regard. Rather than continuing to spend energy on this debate, I would suggest just moving on to more useful work. The calls to delete or move either the Politico article or the Telesur article seem to have failed. Consensus seems to have been reached that those elements should remain as they are, no? SashiRolls (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait, how did Telesur suddenly get equated with Politico and become a RS? It is nothing of the sort. Unreliable sources can sometimes be cited for matters of opinion, but I think this valentine to Baraka form an unreliable source like Telesur needs to be deleted. There's a long way to go on this article, but I think we may soon be able to replace a good deal of the Unreliable and primary sourcing with RS material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. In addition to the clear consensus above, I note that the article uses the phrase "False Flag" in reference to at least three different incidents. Saying he has a history of fringe statements and beliefs is almost redundant. Alsee (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include (summoned by bot): It seems appropriate to report what a reliable secondary source says, and the wording of the sentence is compliant with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude The comments were not "reported" by Politico but were expressed by a freelance contributor, Christopher Hooks, who has a B.A. in history.[10] As stated on their website, "POLITICO Magazine is always looking for smart, timely journalism aimed at a broad, but well-informed audience with a deep interest in politics. We publish both original reporting and distinctive opinion journalism that illuminate the people, ideas, and institutions that matter most in American politics and government.[11] There is a distinction between facts reported by a publication and the opinions expressed by contributors. TFD (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant because we are not stating it as fact, but as as attributed (mainstream) commentary. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• The text says, Political Magazine reports.... Reports are statements of fact not opinion. However, if you want to present it as an opinion you cannot say it is the opinion of Politico because it publishes different opinions. The most you could say is that Hooks, writing in Politico expressed that opinion. It is a poor source to select for this article because it contains only one sentence about the subject. TFD (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• It can easily be recast: the current version is "Christopher Hooks wrote in Politico Magazine that ..." Neutrality^talk 20:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, actually, the current version prior to your revert included the title in the text. Undoing your reversion.SashiRolls (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include—but improve the section intro to give better context E.g. immediately after the bolded sentence in the RFC, list the things he's claimed are "false flag operations". Readers should have to read the entire (rather lengthy) section to understand what the Politico quote is doing there. Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

Move to section clearly labeled commissioned post-nomination articles. (In an election season with all the money circulating around, so-called hit pieces are common. ) Also, it would be wise NOT to change the fact that the title of the article appears in the body of the text. (this would be what User:VictoriaGrayson called "whitewashing", by which I assume s/he meant dissimulating, the article's intention) SashiRolls (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In an effort to have further input, I am pinging the Wikipedia administrator who originally noted the NPOV problem and who encouraged me in so doing to try to provide balance to what he correctly identified as a seemingly biased page. @WikiLeon: I am not used to the process involved here and hope that by doing so I will not offend anyone. I remain very surprised that an article with one dismissive sentence about Ajamu Baraka (out of 2000+ words) could be considered a reputable source on the man's career.SashiRolls (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any such move. Baraka is such a minor player that he didn't even have an article until a few days ago. I suspect that we have to go back to Elbridge Gerry to find a nominee for VP who didn't have an WP article before s/he was nominated. That said, the point is not only that there hardly were any RS taking Baraka seriously enough to evaluate his writing until Stein picked him, it is that a RS is a RS is a RS, and SashiRolls' attemppt to stuff what amount to pretty much all RS assessments of Baraka's published work amounts ot whitewashing by anouth name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

this comment is a violation of WP:NPA. It neither assumes good faith, nor is it polite. A complaint is likely. I'll remind you you are on the talk page of a person who is a fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies. I'm amazed at the disrespect being shown, both to me and to the person we are discussing. I will not speculate as to your motivations. Mine have been impartial. I have also remained polite, but firm, with all the interlocutors, most of whom have very divergent views from my own. SashiRolls (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This doesn't follow any Wikipedia protocol.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unnecessary, inconsistent with policy. We do not organize content by the date that a source was published. Rather, in a biographical article, we organize content topically and chronologically. Neutrality^talk 21:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include, since it has a citation and is related to the topic, there is no reason to exclude it. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2016 (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.

Education

A man can certainly be be an activist, a writer, a leader and President of the United States without going to high school (Abraham Lincoln). However, I'm assuming that Baraka attended high school, university, grad school - can anyone source where he studied?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Adding template to subhead in the hope that someone who can source this will add the info. All I can find is a comment in an interview in which Baraka mentions a professor he studied under.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Age/School

SHOULD I KNow OMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.203.228 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ajamu Baraka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1019-01.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/30/our-girls-are-still-not-home-boko-haram-and-politics-death
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/benghazi-boko-haram-why-i-support-benghazi-inquiry
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812003155/http://gawker.com/stein-campaign-says-running-mate-didn-t-realize-he-was-1785157203 to http://gawker.com/stein-campaign-says-running-mate-didn-t-realize-he-was-1785157203

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

Multiple editors have removed Baraka's ethnicity, African American, from the lead. MOS:BLPLEAD states: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Baraka is a radical black activist who writes frequently on subjects of relevance to African Americans; I argue that his ethnicity is directly relevant to his notability. Funcrunch (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the subject's ethnicity has been removed from the lede sentence a few times in the edit history. Can the case be made that the subject's ethnicity is part of his notability? Please see MOS:BLPLEAD. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Funcrunch, as you admit, multiple editors have reverted you. If you can gain consensus, that would help. Maybe use the BLP board to get more people's opinion. --Malerooster (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If Funcrunch is citing BPLEAD correctly, I don't see a problem with referring to Baraka as an African-American. It is part of his notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

How so? --Malerooster (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I is standard to put this info in the body of the article, not in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

In that case, Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., Clarence Thomas, Thurgood Marshall, Carol Mosely Braun, Mo Cowan, Roland Burris, Cynthia McKinney, Hiram Rhodes Revels are exceptions? It would seem there is a de facto standard for politicians, activists, judges, etc. of including ethnicity in the lead (overwhelmingly so, I only found one counterexample), whereas for writers the practice of including ethnicity in the lead is less common (cf. Toni Morrisson, Ishmael Reed, Ralph Ellison, bell hooks and Zora Neal Hurston (whose ethnicity is not in the lead) and Richard Wright, James Baldwin, W.E.B. Dubois for whom there is ethnicity info in the lead). Agree with original poster, there is no reason to remove ethnicity from the lead against prevailing practices for politicians and activists.77.154.202.235 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are some exceptions, but even then, I am talking about the first sentence. If somebody is the first XYZ-American to do whatever, then their ethnicity is related to their notability, and it belongs in the lead paragraph, otherwise, no this is not the de facto standard. --Malerooster (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering... were either of his parents African? His name sounds more African than African-American. 63.92.241.249 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Darwin

Very little is publicly known about Baraka's family and other aspects of his personal life. For all we know he might have chosen the name Ajamu for himself. Funcrunch (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing smear

There is a smear removal clean-up in progress on this page. Snoog has chosen to disrupt it. Why? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. I kept the title. @Snooganssnoogans:, Perahps you're right we need the long title of the edited work both in wikitext *and* in the Publications section. I seem to remember arguing that some of the fanciful article titles be kept in the article too, but that's a different story, up higher on this talk page probably (or maybe in an archive). Here, I would just say that Baraka as a contributor likely had no control over the publication title. In any case, I do believe that the entry is better now that we at least allow the reader to see how Barrett has self-branded as a heretic. I think that everyone deserves a right to reply; Barrett's as it turns out came long before (whoever it was) sewed that now-dead-link-hit piece into this page. Strange how that works. Just to be clear, I don't really agree that the title needs to be in the text of the entry, but don't care too much. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Smear citations

Editors have introduced plenty of smear articles now (the Politico article "What if the Green Party Stopped Being Kooky and Started Getting Real?", the Tablet Magazine article "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein", and the Gawker article, "Stein Campaign Says Running Mate Didn’t Realize He Was Talking to and Being Republished By Holocaust Denier" for example); for balance it would be good if we sought out some neutral ones. SashiRolls (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: you may want to see if you consider my efforts to give Baraka a chance against the smear campaign balanced and edit them if you think they are not. I would ask that his response to the journalist be kept, however. SashiRolls (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In an article titled "No 'Je Suis Charleston'?" Baraka notes the lack of argues that a similar collective response was absent after to the Charleston terrorist attack at the Emanuel AME Church, ...

@Neutrality: You deleted the sentence above, claiming that "notes the lack of a similar collective response" is not NPOV, because it assumes the truth of Baraka's assertion. I agree with your POV, though his claim is verifiably true: there was not a similar international reaction on FB (people changing their icons to "je suis Charlie" for example), nor were there massive rallies in the major US cities of the type that were seen in Paris, in Lyon, in Toulouse, etc. (the photos of these marches are widely available). That said, on Wikipedia we are not after truth, just verifiability. Would it not be more neutral to simply change the verb "notes", rather than to delete the entire sentence which paraphrases the article and explains the title in a useful way? Do you see another reason why this sentence should not be included or is it just the verb "notes" that bothers you?SashiRolls (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's mostly because of the use of the word "notes," although also I do think that we explain his point of view in shorter form in the previous sentence. If you do really want this content, I would be OK with including it if we changed "notes the lack..." to "contended that there was a lack..." Neutrality^talk 14:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'll let you fix your revert then. "contend" is a good verb that has not yet been used in the article. SashiRolls (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Neutrality^talk 15:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I also note that in the interim you have added yet another smear citation from Tablet Magazine. Doing a little research on your edits, yesterday, I notice that you had previously voiced a general objection to the magazine Gawker (in the discussion of the DNC email leaks here) as being an unreliable tabloid, though here you seem to support its inclusion and have decided to add further weight to it by citing the standard "guilt by association" argument often advanced by those who try to conflate dissent with anti-semitism or other "fringe" views. Tablet Magazine is, of course, almost entirely funded by Keren Keshet of the Rainbow Foundation who lists (here) his sole international interest as "Israel" (like Haim Saban, but on a smaller scale). Would it not be more neutral to simply engage Baraka's own writings? (Also noticed you undid the blockquote for a 4-line quote from Baraka himself. I was always taught that more than 3 lines must be indented...)

In that study of your edits, I learned that you are a prescient and experienced political editor on Wikipedia as the Atlantic has noted: "The Wikipedia page of Virginia Senator Tim Kaine [...] has seen 62 edits on Friday alone. There have been almost 90 edits over the past week. Many of them originate from a user called Neutrality, a longtime Wikipedia editor who has made more than 110,000 edits to the encyclopedia. " (emphasis added) SashiRolls (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

While I am certainly making no claims of impropriety (it's surely a coincidence you added 30K to that page in a few days prior to Kaine being announced), I would ask you again if you don't think you might be inadvertently giving undue weight to the smear campaign being led by special interests, potentially associated with one particular political campaign. SashiRolls (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For all of the above reasons, I have added back the NPOV template, which I do not believe should have been removed.SashiRolls (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I edit on a wide variety of political and non-political topics, including events in the news. I've been doing this for more than 10 years. I was here long before this political silly season, and I'll be on here long afterward.

As for Gawker, you'll notice it was another editor, not me, who added it to this article. I would ping/talk to them about it. (Generally I'm highly skeptical of Gawker and have no problem removing it, but I acknowledge that sometimes they do original reporting).

The idea of a "campaign being led by special interests" lacks any evidence to support it. Reporting on a person's actual views and statements—even if the spotlight of a presidential campaign—is not a "smear." To characterize it as such is not warranted.

As far as Tablet, it's an opinion piece given in-text attribution (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV — we can and sometimes should cite to opinion pieces if relevant, so long as we properly attribute when necessary). As far as the publication's grant funding, I don't see how that is at all nefarious. Lots of publications are funded in whole or in part by grant funding. The Reason Foundation funds Reason magazine; The American Prospect was partially funded by the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, and so forth.

You seem to think that my goal is to portray the article subject in the worst light possible. That's not true (and, I'll note, that I myself have added content such as Baraka's repudiation of Holocaust denial). My overriding goal — and that of most editors, I think — is to portray the article subject accurately, reflecting his career, views, and where relevant, controversies about his views and writings. (This is more difficult than in the usual case because (1) the article subject is fairly marginal and does not get a lot of mainstream media attention and (2) the article subject has some extreme views). Neutrality^talk 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The Tablet citation is a smear attack. (guilt by association) "Yair Rosenberg of Tablet described the work as a "veritable who's who of bigots and conspiracy theorists."[21] I'm not saying that Tablet is unreliable across the board, just that the citation is predictable and has no bearing whatsoever on the article Baraka wrote and which has already been cited in the article for everyone to read. I call for its removal. This is not an article about Barrett, Soral or the other guy mentioned, it's about Baraka. It's highly unlikely Baraka even knows Soral (given that Soral is French and does not generally write in English. SashiRolls (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's explaining the nature of the controversy — i.e., what critics have pointed out. If we just limit this to "controversial figures such as Gilad Atzmon..." we say nothing about why these figures are controversial. Neutrality^talk 17:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Having never heard of Gilad Atzmon, I read his Wikipedia page using the link provided and so was able to discover why he was controversial. I was able to read indeed that there were two sides to the story and that many disagree with the name-calling characterizations that are applied to him. Again, this is not a page about Atzmon, Soral or Barrett. And in fact, I'm afraid your assertion that "we" say nothing about why the figures are controversial is rather disingenous given the citation from gawker... about the false flag, CIA and Mossad. Remember this is a biography of a living person, and insinuating that he is a "bigot" or "conspiracy theorist" is inappropriate. He is an activist who has been critical of Israeli settlements. This is the motivation bethind the smear attacks in the paid press.SashiRolls (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't "insuinate" anything. We quote, giving proper attribution, a perfectly fine piece that explains the controversy. And the last part of your comment is pure speculation. Neutrality^talk 18:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir, contrary to what you have stated: you, (not we), added the citations from Gawker and from Tablet in this edit. SashiRolls (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And yes, I admit that it is only speculation that the Jewish lobby paper is smearing Baraka because of his views on Israeli settlements. Perhaps instead it's because they don't like the Green party's views on the need for action concerning the environment, who knows... SashiRolls (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Jewish lobby"? Really? You forgot to include your attribution (Mein Kampf, perhaps?). That is so loaded a phrase that I don't think you even realized how loaded it was. Yikes. Two years later, I want to register my objection to that kind of language on this wonderful communal resource, Wikipedia. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice this charming message. You do realize there is an en.wp page about the speech you are incriminating? That said, it's true that I would react to such campaigns differently. That said, I will object to your use of your keyboard to type out the Godwin Codes, if you don't mind. ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I also read up on the rules regarding edit wars last night in an effort to follow the rules to ensure neutrality in this article. I would hope that your intense editing on Democratic Party pages (as noted by the Atlantic, and by the research I've provided), would encourage others to react and might encourage you to back off your selective dislike for positive citations TeleSUR, but not for smears from Gawker and Tablet, recognizing that you've called the former a tabloid when it suited your purposes. SashiRolls (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(1) I'm not going to engage with you if you are going to be rude and cast aspersions on me, as you have done to others.

(2) For you to characterize the publication as a "Jewish lobby paper" is disgusting.

(3) Your continued wild speculations about the motives of various writers has nothing at all to do with inclusion criteria.

(4) I did not add the Gawker citation. Another editor added it, and I copy-edited it, breaking up a few sentences and adding duplicate cites where appropriate.

(5) The fact remains that TeleSUR is Venezuelan government-sponsored propaganda, as scholarship and the media shows. Nobody agrees with you that including a laudatory quote from them is a good idea.

Neutrality^talk 18:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"*Tablet (magazine) is a well-regarded, mainstream publication, and Yair Rosenberg is a well-regarded youn journalist, a former section editor at the Harvard Crimson who writes regularly for The Atlantic - a mag that is about as mainstream, centrist, and highly respected as American journalism gets. Calling him a "smear" writer is, well, a smear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Had I called him a smear writer, your comment would be pertinent. I referred to the article "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein" as a smear article, which, by any objective standard, it is. However, what's interesting here, again, is that what is cited is simply an ad hominem attack on Baraka (actually not even specifically on Baraka, but on a undifferentiated group of writers). SashiRolls (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett and "Holocaust denial"

Barrett did not deny that Hitler's Nazis killed millions of people in a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing and eugenics. He literally just quibbled with "Holocaust" as a descriptor, inasmuch as he says that the word means "a religious sacrifice consumed by fire". Portraying this person in the same light as Nazis who deny that mass murder took place is disgusting, and unjustifiable. If mention must be made of Barrett here in spite of WP:N, and specifically WP:UNDUE, the full context of his "denial" should be added, as well as the fact that this wasn't presented to Baraka himself when it was demanded that he repudiate the former. What an absolutely disgusting drive-by smear! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:6465:365E:5473:8503 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Full quote that was cited in the deleted blurb:

"Today is as good a day as any to admit it: I am a holocaust denier.

I deny that the US military’s slaughter of two million Muslims as revenge for 9/11, funded by my family’s and friends’ and neighbors’ tax dollars, constitutes a holocaust.

I deny that the Zionist genocide of Palestine constitutes a holocaust.

I deny that the European settlers’ genocide of tens of millions of Native Americans, perpetrated by some of my own ancestors, constitutes a holocaust.

I deny that the mass murder of tens of millions of Africans in the New World slave trade, perpetrated by some of my own ancestors, constitutes a holocaust.

I deny that the firebombings of German cities including Dresden, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, constitute holocausts.

And I deny that the German murders of Gypsies, Slavs, handicapped people, communists, Jews, and others during World War II constitutes a holocaust.

The root meaning of the word holocaust is “a religious sacrifice consumed by fire.” There is nothing religious about the mass murders listed above, or the dozens of other similar episodes. God doesn’t want us to mass-murder our fellow human beings.

I deny that these and other stupid, evil mass murders have any religious significance whatsoever. I deny that histories of these mass murders are sacred in any way. I deny that any of these episodes of mass murder or genocide somehow justify other episodes of mass murder or genocide. I deny that the people who question historical details of any of these stories are heretics. I deny that they should be silenced or jailed.

I guess that makes me a holocaust denier. So go ahead: Burn me at the stake." 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:6465:365E:5473:8503 (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So, it is completely accurate to say Kevin Barrett described himself as a Holocaust denier. Here is the edit under discussion. I don't think we should link to the primary source where Barrett says this. However, we have multiple secondary sources linking Baraka to Barrett and noting the Holocaust denial and 9/11 denial, such as the Gawker reference deleted, although the sources also say Baraka disavowed the Holocaust denialism. Examples: The vice presidential candidate for the Green Party, Ajamu Baraka, disavowed Holocaust denial after contributing an article to a writer whom Baraka said he did not know was a Holocaust denier. “There has never been any question in mind about the genocidal madness of the Nazi Holocaust throughout Europe during the Second World War,” Ajamu Baraka told Gawker on Augist 12. “I abhor and reject any individual or group that fails to understand the tremendous suffering of Jewish people during that dark period.” Baraka agreed to allow Kevin Barrett, who has said the “Holocaust controversy was a legitimate topic of historical debate,” to include his essay in a book Barrett compiled this year on theories of “false flags,” attacks organized by hidden conspirators to create pretexts for counterattacks. The book included essays by anti-Semites and 9-11 “truthers” who propagate discredited theories that the US government and others are protecting the true perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Barrett’s essay did not allege a “false flag” attack but suggested that last November’s mass shooting attack in Paris was blowback for Europeans who devalued non-European lives[12]/[13] (both use same text from JTA news agency); Earlier this year, the former executive director of the U.S. Human Rights Network had his work featured in a book edited by accused Holocaust denier (“the Holocaust controversy was a legitimate topic of historical debate”) and self-described 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett. The book, Another French False Flag? Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernardino, featured the likes of Jewishness-loathing Gilad Atzmon and Ken O’Keefe, who once made a YouTube video explaining how “Hitler was right.”[14]; Earlier this year, his work was published in a book that was edited by accused Holocaust denier and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett, according to the Daily Beast. That book also has some work by Ken O’Keefe — who once explained via YouTube how “Hitler was right” — and Gilad Atzom — who has been accused of anti-Semitism by Palestinian organizers and activists. For his part, Baraka has disavowed holocaust denial, saying, “ I abhor and reject any individual or group that fails to understand the tremendous suffering of Jewish people during that dark period.”[15]; Baraka has called President Obama an “Uncle Tom” and contributed an essay to the conspiracy theorist tome Another False Flag, edited by Holocaust denier and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett that features pieces arguing, among other things, that the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino never happened. (Baraka’s contribution focuses on the the “white supremacist ideology” that elevates events like the Paris attacks over the Beirut bombings that happened the same week; a spokeswoman for Baraka said he wasn’t aware of Barrett’s views.)[16]; Meanwhile, earlier this year, Stein’s running mate, Ajamu Baraka, contributed an essay to a volume edited by Holocaust denier and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett. The anthology’s title? Another False Flag? Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernadino. A veritable who’s who of bigots and conspiracy theorists, the book posits that the Charlie Hebdo attacks and many others were perpetrated by the CIA and Mossad.[17] Am going to restore a more carefully formulated version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)