Talk:Jesse Lee Peterson

Interesting

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

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

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

Radio

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

Information to be added or removed: In June 2019, YouTube demonetized Peterson's channel, and many others, using an updated hate speech policy. (At the time, the video-sharing platform faced intense scrutiny for discriminatory rightwing content on its platform.)

Explanation of issue: NOTE: COI: I work with this person, the subject. I am unpaid as an editor, and don’t take input from this person. I do feel this detail is noteworthy and adds context to how people present-day are familiar with the subject: that is, because of YouTube — and BuzzFeed and Fox News mention him in this context. (In the past, he was more known for 90s-00s Fox News appearances.)

References supporting change: (BuzzFeed News) Ryan Broderick, 2019-06-05 YouTube Will Now Block Discriminatory Content, Just A Day After Saying It Doesn't Violate Its Policies https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/youtube-block-discriminatory-content | Archive: https://archive.is/HGZch

(Fox News) Greg Re, 2019-06-05 YouTube ends monetization of conservative commentator Steven Crowder's channel, several others after left-wing outrage https://www.foxnews.com/tech/youtube-steven-crowder-carlos-maza-vox-adpocalypse | Archive https://archive.is/IpUeS

JamesAntonHake (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: I suggest putting it in the paragraph mentioning Newsmax TV under “Political Involvement.” JamesAntonHake (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply 26-OCT-2020

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, these four items are shown as an example:

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." 2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." 3. Using as the reference: Prisha Harinath (2020). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. 4. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the missing components from your request. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  13:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

PLACE INFO: Under /* Political involvement */ in 7th paragraph, after words "Peterson's radio show was simulcast on Newsmax TV in 2017-2018.[21]"

ADD THE FOLLOWING INFO, REFERENCES INCLUDED: In June 2019, video-sharing platform YouTube demonetized Peterson's channel, and many others, under an updated hate speech policy. (At the time, YouTube faced intense scrutiny for allowing discriminatory rightwing content on its platform.)

REASON: Multiple sources note this person being among those affected by this well-publicized development in YouTube policy.

NOTE: COI: I work with this subject, and have made prior edits, unpaid and without his input.

JamesAntonHake (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove the anti-Islam sentiment

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

Please see the talk on the category where you have been refuted in your attempts to change consensus on the misuse of the category. Kyaa the Catlord 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Cooler heads did prevail. You're a bit late. Kyaa the Catlord 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you say so! -Robotam 16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, Hipocrite and Dual Freq came in and took care of the BLP issues. GeorgeBP was finally blocked for the sockpuppetry/3rr he was engaged in elsewhere and peace once again was restored in Townsville USA. Yesterday. Kyaa the Catlord 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. And re: the Jan 28th Peterson statement?-Robotam 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the editor who seeks the inclusion of the content's responsibility to source it, not the one who brings up the BLP issue. I gave the user the benefit of the doubt and asked kindly, coolly that the sources be found. I know now that I should have just removed it and walked away. I won't make that mistake again. I'm not the bad guy, I simply brought light to the problem. Kyaa the Catlord 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, there was no edit warring done over the removal of the January 28th incident. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Verifiability

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

Seconded. Unless a source is found, do not include this "information." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirded, though I may have removed this info already. This article is a BLP nightmare and needs proper sourcing. I have tried to remove the most potentially libellous information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The category again

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

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

WikiProject class rating

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

Out of Date

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

Controversial Opinion

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

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

ADD INFO: Peterson is quoted as saying, "Thank God for slavery," and to "the white man for going and getting us here, I want to say, 'Thanks.'"

LOCATION: Place under "Political views" header, as third paragraph, after Hurricane Katrina paragraph, before Nelson Mandela paragraph.

REFERENCE: Coates, Ta-Nehisi, (2013-04-09) "The Conservative Black Hope, Cont" The Atlantic. Retrieved November 25, 2020. Archived from the original November 18, 2020.

EXPLANATION: Several articles in SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) describe Peterson as having thanked God for slavery.

• Nelson, Leah, (2011-07-22) Black pastor who thanked God for slavery hosts anti-NAACP rally SPLC. Retrieved November 25, 2020.

• Gais, Hannah; Hayden, Michael Edison, (2020-11-17), Extremists are cashing in on youth-targeted gaming website SPLC. Retrieved November 25, 2020.

NOTE: COI: I work with this subject, and have previously contributed to the article on my own time and without his input. JamesAntonHake (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Someone may prove me wrong by checking RSN archives, but I would think the Southern Poverty Law Center would be too partisan to be considered an RS. That leaves us with The Atlantic, which seems to infer the quote is from the article-subject, but it's not 100% clear. Additionally, it is not clear if this quote is something the person is famous for that belongs on the page, or merely an anecdote or sarcastic comment taken out of context. Although it's not formal policy that I know of, and I don't work on political topics often, I would expect to look at one democrat and one republican leaning source and see what they both agree on. CorporateM (Talk) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  CorporateM, I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The Southern Poverty Law Center is actually considered a reliable source per WP:SPLC, but it may be too partisan for its use in this BLP. Second, the Atlantic article does not explicitly state that Peterson said the above - which could be libelous. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Bias source

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

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

Educational background

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

Hurricane Katrina

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

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

I don't think that's POV-- it's something he says pretty unequivocally in [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46440 his article] on the topic. The original quote is:

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

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

Self-Hating African American?

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

• According to the standards of WP:BLP, the answer to your question would be NO. -RoBoTam^ice 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Generally agree with the above although in some cases if criticism of a person as say "a self hating black man" becomes notable, and is in reputable sources, it can be included. Your personal opinion on him, or anyone living, is irrelevant.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• He has repeatedly stated his belief that slavery was a good thing, so I definitely agree with Gouryella's view of him, although reliable-source and BLP restrictions still apply of course...Stonemason89 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I really do not think it is the role of an editor to adjudicate or diagnose what any individual's motives are. If the subject does not call himself this thing, then it is not for an editor or anyone for that matter to make that determination for the subject. And frankly, flinging this word "racist" around is becoming quite tiresome and it is not something that a serious scholar would do. Let's stick to demonstrable facts and not moralizing and judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WirmerFlagge (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Indee... It's completely unnecessary to include all kind of moronic comments into the article. Seen this happening with lobbyless dead people more than enough. But it's also wasteful to do this a living person that could reply. 105.0.0.249 (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"Statements"

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

Unsourced information

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.

The Brotherhood Organization

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

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

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

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

References

• Under POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT, please replace current first sentence with this: "Peterson has stated that he used to be a Democrat, but became a Republican because of Christian beliefs around age 38."
• Reason for the change: Someone wrote that he became a Republican in the 1970s, which would be too early (subject was 38 in 1987-1988).
• See the already-cited Yahoo News article: "According to Peterson, the hardest thing he ever did in his life was forgiving [his mother] when he was 38 years old.... The more Peterson devoted himself to Christianity, the more he realized that his new beliefs were not ones he felt aligned with the Democratic Party." https://www.yahoo.com/news/unfiltered-democratic-plantation-really-worse-plantation-grew-003637996.html

COI: I work with this subject and have made/requested prior edits to this page. JamesAntonHake (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

JamesAntonHake, Y done. Chirota (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jesse Lee Peterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070616075448/http://chooseblackamerica.com:80/about.html to http://chooseblackamerica.com/about.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.judicialwatch.org/5704.shtml

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Usage of unreliable sources to substantiate views

Recently, there has been a dispute involving the inclusion of Right Wing Watch and various youtube videos as sources for Peterson's views. I do not believe that RWW constitutes a reliable source for information about a WP:BLP and youtube videos are almost never considered acceptable sources for BLPs. The things that Peterson has said that have garnered significant, third-party coverage should be included, those things that haven't been covered should not be included. Notifying Minussquareofa who has been adding the disputed sources. SWL36 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining the rule to me.
• But still I do not understand why the Peterson's own Youtube channel and his original live streaming interview cannot be considered as reliable as these are his own words that fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. In my last edit, I had already pointed to his own channel and his original live streaming interview, had you re-checked those links before removing those sections? Minussquareofa (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

Information to be added or removed: REMOVE "Spouse(s)" field from Infobox

Explanation of issue: Subject commonly states he never married, but was "engaged twice." I've never heard of any person claim to be his spouse. I believe current "Spouse(s)" field is a result of vandalism.

References supporting change: Most recent statements, "The Jesse Lee Peterson Show," Monday, October 5, 2020 (time stamp 30:41) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0sz0-nbi1I&t=30m41s

COI: I work with this subject.

JamesAntonHake (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAntonHake: Done. In future for egregious issues such as this, you may get a more prompt response at WP:BLPN (but please do not use that page to request routine updates). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

COI and bad sources tags

@JamesAntonHake: There is a lot of problems here. The large quantity of context-free info added into he article is not necessarily helping Declaring your COI is good, but it's not enough to make these edits neutral. COI editors, especially WP:PAID ones, should in most cases propose changes on this talk page instead of making them directly. Template:Request edit is available for this purpose. Making promotional edits yourself is not acceptable, and you are not impartial enough to judge whether these edits are promotional.

As for sources, again, many problems. Too many youtube clips. I also see press releases (which may predate the COI activity, but are still inappropriate). There's a Daily Wire link, which fails WP:RSP. IMDB should also not be cited in BLP articles, per WP:CITEIMDB. Perhaps more, but that's a start. It is not enough for a fact to be supported by an obscure unreliable or WP:PRIMARY source. We need reliable, independent sources to explain to readers why these things are encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Gotcha. I am NOT a paid editor. As you may have seen I've done this on my own time and without subject's input. I was not aware of the Daily Wire and IMDb issues, but only heeded alerts re: Daily Mail and Daily Caller. Can you explain or point me to what you mean by "context-free" info?

Going forward, I will do the "Request edit" for any updates as you suggest.

The YouTube clips are generally only supplemental to mainstream sources, such proof of Politicon debates, 1990 Donahue and Geraldo, and in one case document 1996 local media riot coverage.

I do understand that if a story wasn't written about extensively by mainstream sources, that's a sign it is not notable. I have sought to put only what he's known for, what people would want to know about him, and provide a general impression of his confrontational activity over the decades. I included potentially derogatory info and rebuttals do him, and sought to make that aspect objective. If there's too much detail, I can look through and pare down and cut out a lot of the extra info, stories, and sources, keeping in mind what you've noted to me. I assume that would not require the "Request edit," to trim the fat. JamesAntonHake (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: UPDATE: Since it was my mess that I created, taking your advice I heavily pared down the article to what seemed notable enough to keep, cutting out IMDb, Daily Wire, press release, and most YouTube references, except for one biographical claim about never marrying. Note again that I do this on my own time, unpaid, and without the subject's input. Any future additions, I'll check out the "Request edit" option. Thanks for the input. JamesAntonHake (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Far right"

I initially removed the "so far-right" claim which is used to support a few claims he's far-right (e.g. in the infobox). It comes from a Yahoo interview (here):

The more Peterson devoted himself to Christianity, the more he realized that his new beliefs were not ones he felt aligned with the Democratic Party. “I can no longer identify with the Democratic platform because the Democratic platform is anti-God, anti-family, anti-country, anti-military, anti-unborn child,” he says. “I became a Republican conservative, and I am 100 percent Republican conservative. I’m so far right that I can hardly see myself.”

I read this initially as "I am so far [on the] right that I can hardly see myself [from before]" rather than as him identifying as a far-right figure, which is a label I believe he would not readily associate himself with. I am not familiar with his work, so I will leave this here and see if others have any comments bearing in mind this is a WP:BLP. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Can Jesse be classified as a white supremacist?

The label does not only apply to white people and he recently made a claim that screams this category. https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1534898068000280577 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.212.124.14 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It would need a better source than a tweet or a blog.

I do have a few sources that describe Peterson's message as being consistent with theirs. For example, from Brando Starkey:[1]

And equally important, Peterson's presence establishes that white faces wishing to do blacks harm still appreciate the benefits of a black mask.6

From The Nation Volume 280 (2005)[2]:

For white nationalists determined to intimidate and marginalize aspirant ethnic minorities, Peterson could embolden their crusade. It's no wonder both factions have promoted him so aggressively ... Abernathy informed me that she is friends with a black minister in Los Angeles named Jesse Lee Peterson

I don't know if this is enough to label him, but it does imply adjacency. Hunan201p (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop making up lies about black people

Jesse Lee Petersen is not a white supremacist 2601:1C0:CA00:5380:B9C3:5EDA:9FB5:85D1 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

"AFPAC has been described as a white nationalist political action committee"

Specify by whom this statement as been made. My tightness (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Biased/ Politically Motivated Sources

A considerable amount of information is inaccurate and the entire page should be rewritten in an unbiased manner 134.228.64.208 (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

Remove the pay wall sources in the intro suggesting he is a white supremacist. 47.40.215.1 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: If you'd like to provide alternate sources that aren't paywalled, we can swap them in. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)