Talk:Leonard Jeffries

Anti-Semitic people clarification

Once again, if the anti-semitic feelings and statements of the person can be reliably sourced, as they have in Jeffries' case, then there is no BLP violation. BLP is not a license to whitewash; it is a requirement that we must take extra care -- which is fulfilled in Jeffries's case. Thank you. -- Avi 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Italian Americans?

I saw a newsreel where the reporter claimed Jeffries also made disparaging remarks about Italian Americans. Is there another source for that? I wonder if there was any reaction from the Italian American community. Anyway, it'd be interesting to include in the article.Olockers

lectures

removed unsourced claim about his lectures turning into rants.

And so you should. They don't turn into rants, they start as rants Thecrystalcicero (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the word "rant", with multiple footnotes. Uucp (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Kemetism

This article is written from an anti-Kemetic point of view (if not racism) and must be completely rewritten to meet Wikipedia NPOV policy.

Wikipedia must take action against Cultural terrorists that promote anti-kemetism and libel African Scholars.

Example of libel: To asset that Dr. Jeffries originated the People of the Sun, people of the Ice theory is an Cultural Poisoning outrage. This theory was researched and put forth by the European American Micheal Bradley in his book the Iceman Inheritance. This error must be corrected immediately.

The people of the Sun concept comes into recorded history in Classical African Civilization, Kemet (ancient Egypt) and has nothing to do with anti-semitism.

A Proper NPOV and a libel challenge sticker should be place on the front of this article until these issues are corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunk (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As the article now stands, it simply states that Dr. Jeffries advanced (or propagated) the racist "Ice People" theory. The fact that he has done so is rather well documented. Nowhere does it state the he is the originator of this "theory." 24.47.157.59 (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The source article uses the word "propounds". Per Webster's thesaurus, "advance" is an acceptable synonym for propound (via propose). See http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/propose. -- Avi (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The sun(southern) people, ice(northern) people dynamic comes from the two cradle theory created by Senegalese scholar Cheikh Anta Diop. Michael Bradley just build on it, and gave it a more rememberable name. Same idea thoughvap (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Coverage?

This article reads like a hit piece. Has Jeffries done nothing notable except saying controversial things? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

you are welcome to use Google or check newspaper articles. I think this article is generous to Jeffries. It doesn't include any discussion of his recent rants about how people should follow his example and avoid eating white food (sugar, milk, etc.), to avoid poisoning themselves with whiteness. He's crazy. Uucp (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism and Category:Black supremacy

Copied from my talk page:

Regarding WP:NPOV it does not mean that articles should be lobotomized. Furthermore, hagiographic editing and whitewashing are just as severe POV violations as are improperly denigrating. Mr. Jeffries's positions are well documented as being discussed in the context of Antisemitism and Black Supremacy, and these are supported in the article, or at least they were before your rewrite; I have not had the opportunity to check in detail. While I applaud your efforts to make the article more neutral, removing substantiated issues and their appropriate categories does not do so; rather the opposite. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention to turn this article into a hagiography, trust me on that. About categories that are widely seen as negative such as Antisemitism and Black Supremacy, I think they should not be used on articles about people unless they openly identify as antisemitic or black supremacist, or if they are dead and universally considered antisemitic or black supremacist. Categories are supposed to be useful for navigation, not for shaming. The article text should describe what he has said, and what others have said about it. I think it does. I have not removed much but added more. The little I removed were either unsourced or not actually supported by the source. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is incorrect. Wikipedia deleted Category:Antisemitic people on April 2, 2007 for that reason. Category:Antisemitism and Category:Black supremacy, on the other hand, are meant to be used in articles discussing the above topics. For example, the Anti-Defamation League is in Category:Antisemitism too. Jeffries's Black supremacist and antisemitic statements that contribute heavily to his notability, and the article reflects that; thus the categories. -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see it was deleted, and that does not mean the articles should be in Category:Antisemitism instead. It still looks like tagging Jeffries as an anti-semite. Which is probably is, but it is not neutral. I also fail to see how he is relevant to the general topic of anti-semitism and how putting the article in that category helps navigation. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, thank you for the copyediting. Do you use any script for the references? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the heading to Category:Antisemitism where it states "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic." That applies to this article. As for the citation expansion, I do that all by hand, which is why it takes so long -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Various

Some various comments are questions:

• Is Jeffries affiliated with AfricaWithin, or is this more of a "fan site"?
  • Looks more like a fan site than a reliable source. I wish it had spurces for what it brings, but I didn't see any. -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree we shouldn't use it as a source, but I wonder how to describe the link in the External links section. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Diane Ravitch is now described as "white, female, Jewish". I originally wrote just "white, Jewish" because that is what the source said. I guess it said both white and Jewish because she could have been black and Jewish. Also, that she is female is obvious from the name. I suggest going back to "white, Jewish" or just "Jewish".
  • As the article itself is not quoted, the sentence appears to be a description of Ravitch. But I guess female is pretty obvious, so I have no problems having it taken out. -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• It says that melanin allows black people to "…negotiate the vibrations of the universe and to deal with the ultraviolet rays of the sun." That melanin protects against ultraviolet rays is nothing controversial, so can we shorten it to melanin allows black people to "…negotiate the vibrations of the universe"? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue per se, although that is the quote by Jeffries. I'd personally rather bring the entire quote, once we are quoting. The object here is not to bring only contreversial statements by Jeffries, but to represent Jeffreis in accordance with what makes him notable, keeping in mind WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE (all of which apply equally to improper denigration and improper whitewashing). -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Is there any reason to list LCCN and OCLC if there already is an ISBN?
  • Yes. ISBN links to an on-wiki page. OCLC and LCCN link directly to WorldCat and the Library of Congress. It adds very little to the on-screen display in terms of size, the addition in the edit mode is usually 12 characters or less, and the additional functionality and verifiability is worth it in my opinion. In this case, the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia dominates, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Does anyone have access to "Rutherford Magazine" p. 13, May 1995. Leonard Jeffries interviewed by T.L. Stanclu and Nisha Mohammed that is used to cite In an interview in Rutherford Magazine May 1995 Jeffries, asked what kind of world he would want to leave to his children, he answered: "A world in which there aren’t any white people". It sounds like something he might say, but I would like to confirm. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I checked on Rutherford's website but I cannot find any archives, and the magazine appears defunct and replaces with new publications. We will need to find an archive, or perhaps someone can contact the organization itself and ask for confirmation. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pi Lambda Phi, "Jewish fraternity"

I checked up a bit on Pi Lambda Phi, but I didn't think it was worth getting into detail about it in the article. here is a 1958 source about Jeffries becoming president of PLP. This 1964 source mentions it being a Jewish fraternity. Perhaps the Lafayette PLP was primarily Jewish while the national PLP is non-denominational. Per this and this it was created in 1925 and locally known as "Towers". It joined the national PLP in 1940 after the university Board of Trustees delayed it for over a decade. It was closed in 1982 due to low membership, and the building is now an inn. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of wrong info in the article

Dr Jeffries' parents names were named Leonard Jeffries and Leola Jeffries. Proof: he said it in his class and in his books, he is named Leonard Jeffries Jr. it's a messy page but ehhhhh somebody's got to clean it..........vap (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We prefer a written source, but getting it right is most important. What other things do you think is wrong or unclear in the article? Thanks for the photo too. A clearer one would be better, but this is something. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look over it and make a list over here in a little. vap (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much bias

Reading this article (and I am no fan) I find the general tone esp in the section i flagged as excessively negative. The lede gives us the impression he got fired and that was that. The equally important information is somehow missing, what happened. e.g. OJ was charged with double murder.... (end), we need to know what happened.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you not reading the extensive discussion of the case in the "Removal as chairman and legal battles" section in this article? Uucp (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering it significance it is then required to be summarized in the lede or not placed in the lede, but not left hanging. WP:LEAD--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What part of WP:LEAD do you think is violated by the text as it stands?Uucp (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

" It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" right now it fails to explain the result of the most prominent controversy. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, about 2/3 of the introduction is explaining the controversy. "He achieved national prominence in the early 1990s for his controversial statements about Jews and other white people. In a 1991 speech he claimed that Jews financed the slave trade, used the movie industry to hurt black people, and that whites are "ice people" while Africans are "sun people"." What you want to add is a five or six word summary of the outcome of a complex series of lawsuits and counterlawsuits. Those lawsuits are not what is interesting or important about Jeffries, and I don't think they can be accurately summarized any more briefly than they are in the text of the "Removal as chairman and legal battles" section, below. Uucp (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem not even worth it for such a small issue anyway.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite discussion. Uucp (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent History

″During the past 50 years, Dr. Jeffries life has truly been an excellent example of commitment to the current theme of the African Union (AU) which is Pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance. His education, research and publication attest to his growth and development as a Pan-African bridge builder.″

This doesn't seem very neutral to me. The whole section seems to be lionising a racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.157.104 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored to original NPOV version. --Inayity (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Worst Entry on Wikipedia?

It might be in the competition. The intro is a mess, and without a single citation to boot not to mention filled with outright odd superlative statements about the subject and ordered in a nonsensical way including things that are nothing more than trivia. It almost seems like Mr. Jeffries himself got to the page, or a very ardent fan at the least. I don't even know where to start cleaning this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.104.62 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the original lead, It seems someone went through it with a single focused agenda.--Inayity (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, if you feel comfortable with the balance of the article at this point feel free to remove the NPOV tag. 98.124.104.62 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede Confusion

To focus on just one of the components of a really bad lede: what is a "master-teacher/administrator" and how is that different from being an "educator"?68.9.50.153 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)