Talk:Al Sharpton

Archive 1 (25-Sept-2003 – 30-Apr-2007)

BUSTED

Caught on an FBI Surveillance Tape Discussing a Cocaine Deal The television show HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel showed a 1983 FBI videotape in which Al Sharpton is seen talking about laundering drug money with former mobster Michael Franzese, a Mafioso-turned-undercover-FBI informant posing as a cocaine dealer. Now you might think something like this might be bad news for a presidential candidate, but to hear Sharpton talk about it, there's nothing unseemly about it.

Now, to be fair, no indictments weredd issued and the sting operation was never completed. But those are pretty thin excuses for a president of the United States. (At least he didn't blame a DUII on his political enemies.)

Sharpton got into this mess through his friendship with boxing promoter Don King, a longtime friend of his. Franzese, a former Colombo family captain, alleges that a South American drug dealer looking to launder money through boxing promotions approached him. According to Franzese,Sharpton was going to arrange a meeting between the dealer and King.

But the drug dealer was really an undercover FBI agent in a probe of boxing corruption. Sharpton claimed the tape was a "total attempt to set up and criminalize people," that it was leaked to scuttle his possible presidential bid, and that HBO distorted the evidence by showing only selected portions of the tape. He also clamed that a second tape existed that exonerated him.

Sharpton sued HBO for defamation and asked for $1 billion in damages. (As if he had a billion dollar reputation before the tape aired.) HBO Sports spokesman Ray Stallone described the suit as "so silly that it is unworthy of comment." Nothing has come of it since it was filed.

Source: http://www.realchange.org/sharpton.htm#cokesources

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.152.13.67 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Why is this here but not on his page? -74.100.190.18 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, for one thing, it would be a WP:COPYVIO, since this is a verbatim paste from a copyrighted website. Secondly, WP:BLP requires that there be reliable, attributed sources cited JGHowes ^talk - 03:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, is CNN a reliable source? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/24/sharpton.lawsuit/index.html I realize it's a disputed incident, but I think it should be included. Ryratt 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This should be included. The existence of the videotape, Sharpton's acquiescence in the deal, and its subsequent airing on Real Sports are documented facts, not disputed even by Sharpton, who claims it all happened, but that he was just "playing along" with the drug dealers. The fact that it isn't on the main page is a disgrace.

DISGRACEFUL THAT THIS IS OMITTED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.22.58 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be included in the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.190.142 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the anti-Al allegations

They do not seem to have any basis in fact, and the sources are biased. Most are from that trash site National Review. --Revolución (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

They seem to have been documented, and properly sourced... I've put them back, we can discuss here their validity, and agree on cleaning it up. --Sebastian Kessel 20:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

National Review is not a credible source. --Revolución (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So you say--Tombombadil 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

--Sebastian Kessel 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me take the first step, before getting into an unnecessary conflict. Why don't we leave the part that start "Critics say...." since is vital to keep NPOV, and you can rewrite the "Bigotry" section, (even rename it) to make it more NPOV-ish and less inflamatory? --Sebastian Kessel 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling NR a "trash site" is absurd. NR's worst crime is the standard childishness found in American politics. Being a reader of NR, I have not known them to make up anything. Further, the fact that Revolucion is vandalising for POv is made clearer since NR is one source among several I supplied. If NR magazine had lied about anything in there, Sharpton would have sued for libel (You'll notice he hasn't even bothered), and a long list of other newspapers and magazines would not have corroborated it. Race Reality 21:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I did so on my own talk page, but it's my opinion and that's why I didn't express it here. The fact that he doesn't bother to file suit is irrelevant, it might as well mean that he doesn't think it's important... I don't know. At this point, to make it NPOV you should try to be objective and present the opposite POV as well, like explaining how Sharpton's defenders react against these allegations. --Sebastian Kessel 21:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok but this is a wiki. If someone can find a response, they can add it. That's not what Revolucion has been doing. I looked for his supporter's explanations, and they don't seem to be willing to comment. Fromwh at I can find Sharpton responded to only one allegation (Freddy's Fashion mart), and only because he was cornered: he said it didn't happen for a while, then a reporter showed him a video tape, he said "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" this is already quoted in the article. Oh and someone asked him about Brawley, "if I saved the pope's life you would ask me about Brawley", that's the only comment I remember. Again, go looking for something, but he doesn't seem too proud of this so you might find nothing, that's not surprising? It doesn't look good when he's running for president etc.

(Automatic signing would be nice. I wouldn't keep doing this. Race Reality)

RR, this is not a place for personal attacks. I understand that you have your differences with User:Revolución, but try to avoid that clouding your objectivity. Having said that, you say "If someone can find a response, they can add it.". In WP, we try to present NPOV articles since this is an encyclopedia project. If you think something is relevant but POV-ish, the best course of action is to try and make it NPOV yourself, maybe even researching Sharpton's official website. For now, I'll add the POV tag to the section, and maybe other wikipedians will be willing to help. PS: Don't forget to sign your comments. :) --Sebastian Kessel 22:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in the interests of NPOV we are going to go through each of these allegations and see if they are true. Starting with the homophobia, in which he is accused of saying the word "faggots". Now, this says "in his early years" and doesn't mention the frequency of the alleged saying of the word. So he might have said it only once or twice, and even then, it would been an act influenced by those around him, since he was in his "early years" and not currently in his 50s. He might have never even said it, because we have so much crap being thrown in this article at him, I think this must have been made up. From Sharpton's page on "On the Issues": Don't let states deal with gay rights-equal federal rights. (Feb 2004) Dangerous precedent to leave gay rights to the states. (Jan 2004) Banning gay marriage says gays are less than human. (Nov 2003) Supports gay rights-let people choose to sin or not. (Jan 2002) Let gays and lesbians adopt. (Jan 2002). these stances are actually helpful for gays and lesbians, so if he was ever homophobic, he is definitely not now and we can be sure to remove that part for the moment. --Revolución (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If you add links to that you should append what you just wrote to the end of the section. --Sebastian Kessel 17:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I am asking the anti-Al folks to provide evidence that he allegedly made those statements. The allegations do not mention a time and place of those statements, and the sources are biased. Where are the credible sources? Show me news articles, from CNN / New York Times/ something mainstream (but not the propaganda Fox News) , and not a right-wing trash site. --Revolución (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. CNN and the New York Times are "credible sources," but Fox News and NR are "propaganda" and "trash." Got it. (Oh, and the "Revolucion!" crap went out with Danny Ortega. Get a freakin' life.)

I would like to remind other editors that Wikipedia directs us to be civil. However, properly sourced quotes are appropriate in this article. The sourced articles include salon.com (hardly a font of right wing propaganda). Another listed source is mises.org, also not an source likely to repeat unvarnished propaganda of the right. Perhaps you could locate and include some references where Al Sharpton disclaims the actions and statements made in the referenced articles.

Revolución, your assertion that there is anything wrong with Fox News other than their obvious slant is empty. Provide evidence that Fox has ever fabricated a story, as your "credible sources" have done. What you mean is they say things you don't like, while the New York Times, which also has a bias though you're apparently unaware of it, says things you agree with, making them in your eyes "credible". This displays a woeful lack of self-understanding, not to mention a severely shallow approach to the way you form your opinions. Till you learn better, I hope you stop vandalizing pages you don't like, because you obviously don't understand the difference between "being wrong" and "disagreeing with you". (By the way, the fellow who pointed out that your "Revolución" moniker is right: it got old and tired decades ago.)

That said, I would like to make a statement about sources. Opinion pieces from the web are really bad sources. Ann Coulter or Arianna Huffington asserting that someone said or did something just doesn't make it so. It only means someone you respect has made a claim. I admit that news sources are often questionable (remember the hundreds murdered, the piles of bodies, the rampant rapes and muggings and violence, the hundreds of body bags stacked in freezers in the sports arena in New Orleans?), but they're still better to quote than opinion journalists.Alcuin of York 18:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC) –––

Groom Execution ?

On November 26, 2006, on exiting a club, a Black man soon to be married and become a Groom was with 2 friends and entered their car to leave.

Their car was bocked from leaving by van in front and car in back - both van & car in back containing undercover police.

The police then opened fire killing the groom and seriously & critically wounding his two friends.

Immediately, their were explanations that the groom's car rammed the undercover police cars and so was using deadly force (the ramming by a car).

Except that there is no authority anyway for any undercover policeman to ever restrain freedom of movement by anyone and on doing so that is kidnapping

AND

the person being kidnapped (the groom and pals in their car) CAN USE what force is necessary to escape in this case ramming with their car to attempt to get away from the kidnappers , apparent robberts, killers.

To then have that ramming used as an excuse to fire upon the groom and friends is misspeaking and tangling the facts....

as NO ONE not even the chief of police , if undercover and un identified can EVER RESTRAIN ANYONE AT ALL and if you do so

you can be legitimately defended against up to and including deadly force to stop your restaint....

Felony murder Such an unlawful restraint is kidnapping - a felony and during such an event (as kidnapping) , if there are any resulting deaths

it is murder under the felony murder doctrine which is clear

if you begin an unlawful act which is a felony and death results it IS MURDER under that felony murder doctrine which holds you responsible for that death as murder.

And so under that accurate theory, all the police firing at the groom attempting to escape that unlawful restraint , ALL Of them are guilty of felony murder

they have no excuse and no cause to restrain the groom and all the bs in the entire world will not allow their restraining anyone

unless and until they identify themselves completely and state their business

without that they have NO AUTHORITY AT ALL including any authority fire upon anyone

and their restraint was a felony / kidnapping and the resulting death of the Groom is murder

s Chas Bronson Sr, aka the vigalante

Your lack of punctuation, inability to form a complete, coherent sentence, and especially your excessive use of the capslock key do not inspire much confidence in your thinking processes.Alcuin of York 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism???

The criticism on this page is very minimal at the best. If this page is supposed to show the truth, then maybe someone could write on his own bigotry. Or write on the fact that America would be better off as a country racially if it wasn't for him, Jesse Jackson, and some leaders of the NAACP keeping the race issue alive. The only reason it is still an issue is because they want it to be so they can make more money. If he was truly a civil rights activist, he would be working his ass off to help the people that are stuck in the ghettos of america, not trying to get some semi-known shock jock fired for a bad joke. It is all about the MONEY for him. And that is the truth.--71.199.196.64 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

71.199.196.64, we are in the middle of a discussion right now about how much criticism we ought to be putting in, and you're welcome to join it. However, you should know that this page is not a forum for general discussions of Sharpton's' character, positive or negative. Wikipedia runs (or should run) on well-sourced facts, nothing else. There are some policies I can direct you to that will help you to contribute here, if you like. Just leave a message here and ask, or click on my signature and leave a message on my talk page. IronDuke 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a lot more criticism than there currently is.--Craigboy 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Sharpton is a vicious racist and a liar. He is more racist towards the majority than the racism that is still alive in the United States. Al Sharpton only fuels the fire of racial problems. The only thing he cares about is money and his own career. He does not care about the minorities at all. Whenever there is a comment or incident involving a minority he only does the same thing to the oppressors but worse. If a harsh comment is made Al Sharpton only fires back with an equally racist comment and yet he is praised for his "incredible ability to inspire". He will stop at nothing to destroy race relations in America as long as it means he will keep his job and make more money.

Diamond Merchants Comment

Some mention needs to be made of his referring to Hasidic Jews of the Crown Heights area as "Diamond Merchants", a term many see as evidence of anti-semitism. Please see Race and Religion amond the Chosen Peoples of Crown Heights by Harry Goldschmidt, published by Rutgers University Press, page 50. It's viewable on Google Books. Algabal 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's been in the article for a long time, but has fallen out due to recent edit-warring. IronDuke 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you using five sources? Just use one or two and then properly format them. Why do you keep making messes for others to clean up? Jiffypopmetaltop 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever seen info rejected because its OVER reliably sourced. This info looks relevant and should be in the article. And of course its quite wel sourced. Dman727 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like absolute crap and doesnt fit the sourcing method of the rest of the article. Of course it is relevant and should be in the article. However, the edits look like they were done by crayon. Quality standards be damned. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. If you think it looks like crap, perhaps you could try cleaning it up instead of just blanking it? By the way, I would suggest not attacking the editor with comments like "done by crayon"..thats really not appropriate. Dman727 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:IronDuke, please use {{cite}} templates(see template:cite) to conform to the rest of the article. Not using them makes the article look sloppy. Standards for what makes a good edit have been increased a bit since 2004.

• User:Dman727, I would clean up a very old source reference as I have already done in this article, but not one recently edited. I support deleting newly added poorly formatted content. I do not have a problem with five sources, as long as they are not chained. patsw 11:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Patsw Thanks for prividing a link to wiki policy in citations. However, you may wish to click on it yourself and read what's there. I quote from the page:

“ The use of citation templates is not required. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the relevant guideline. ”

(Emphasis in original, BTW) As I said, I prefer an embedded citation, and will always use that in preference to a ref tag (which are, to refresh, not required) as long as I'm allowed. I know it doesn't look nearly as good as the tags, but it's much more useful, IMO, for navigating the article and quickly checking refs. In fact, if I wanted to be a WP:DICK about it, I could insist that all my references remain just as I have formatted them. But I have no interest in edit-warring over it. People can modify them if they like. Sorry to come across all 2004-y. IronDuke 13:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The text you added doesnt match the sources. The only one refering to yarmalukes is an editorial. That is what is wrong with adding five sources. If I tried to remove the unsourced text then you would scream "edit warring" and vandalism. Really, it is your poor method of sourcing that has caused ALL of these issues. Please resource the yarmaluke content and only use one or two sources. Then I will reformat the sources. I will not reformat five sources that have little or nothing to do with the content.Jiffypopmetaltop 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourced the yarmulke thing to the Chicago Trib. Which of the six other sources would you like me to use, or all they all equal in your eyes? IronDuke 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The full wording at WP:FOOT is:

“ Text placed between <ref> and </ref> may be short notes or full bibliographic references, and may be formatted either by hand or with the assistance of templates. Instructions on available templates to help format bibliographic references may be found at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Use of such templates is not required; see WP:CITE. ”

• Please learn how to create a full bibliographic reference. (Use of citation template is not required.)
• Please understand that a lot of people have been doing a Google search of "Sharpton yarmulkes" and finding 683 references in blogs, discussion boards, and editorials, most from the last 12 or 24 months. This is isn't verification, it's observing repetition of what looks like a good quote, and it keeps getting recycled. Who can say if John Kass of the Chicago Tribune found the yarmulkes quote on April 11, 2007 from reading it here, or verified in from its original appearance 16 years ago? patsw 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of how to create bibliographic references.

I cannot say where Kass got his info, but he's a reliable source and I'm not, so I can't simply override him because I suspect he may not have done due diligence (which, I might add, I have no reason to). This is a common quote from Sharpton (it's even in Wikiquote). So it belongs in the article because it's very widespread, although a rebuttal from Sharpton, e.g., "I never said any such thing" if it exists would be great to have, too. IronDuke 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sharpton has made several antisemitic comments. Not only the diamond merchants controversy, but also "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." I can't quite remember where he said this, but the quote is known and has been published by countless moderate and conservative books as a criticism of Al Sharpton. To conclude, his antisemitic remarks should be brought up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.58.113 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Protest concerning vile language in hip-hop

Shouldn't the article mention Al Sharpton's recent protest of removing the N-word, the B-word and the H-word from rap music? It occured in Midtown Manhattan on 5/3/2007. He marched in front of record companies.Fclass 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. However, we have to wonder how notable it will be in ten years. If it continues and real change occurs because of it, then yes. But we want to be careful not to put in facts from every single news story about Sharpton into the article, or it will become huge and hard ot navigate. IronDuke 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in a WP article generally isn't whether something will be notable in ten years, it's whether it's notable today. Examples include the controversies concerning Michael Richards and Tim Hardaway. They were large sections when the controversies were in the news, and the articles were trimmed when they faded from the news.

The bigger question is whether Sharpton's protests will be notable next week. If it's still in the news then, I think it belongs in the article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Malik. Can we say, still notable in a month, though? (BTW, Even if he found a cure for cancer tomorrow, the Michael Richards racial stuff will follow him around forever. IMO.) IronDuke 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Improper Use of the Honorary Prefix "the Reverend"

The honorific, "the reverend," is improperly used in this article. First, it is an honorific or style, not a title as it is refered to in the info box. Second, it is incorrect to use the term without the article "the" preceeding it. (In other words, "Reverend Al Sharpton" is incorrect. "The Reverend Al Shapton is correct.) When used in the middle of a sentence, "the" is always lowercase. Third, it is considered incorrect by tranditional grammarians to use the title without the person's full name. For example, "the Reverend Sharpton" is not right.

Please see the Wikipedia entery, reverend, for more complete rules on the correct usage of this honorific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ask123 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Based on similar articles, including Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and William Sloane Coffin, I believe that (a) the use of Reverend is inappropriate in both the lede and the infobox and (b) the word "professional" is inappropriate in describing Sharpton's political activism. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak as to the appropriateness of the word "professional" in connection to Sharpton's political activism, but I am sure that the use of "Reverend" in this article is incorrect. It should always be "the Reverend." I agree with you there 100%. ask123 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected this problem and, as dictated by proper English grammar, added a "the" before all of the mentions of the word "reverend." The one exception to this is a quotation in which the speaker mistakenly leaves out the the. Can't change that one of course! Cheers. ask123 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the title altogether. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names, after the first sentence he should be referred to as "Sharpton". This usage is consistent with Martin Luther King, Jr. and most other biographies. If it's good enough for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it's good enough for Reverend Al Sharpton (who is almost never referred to as "the Reverend Al Sharpton", whatever "proper" usage dictates). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Call for Career to End

Added line "However the Catholic League, is calling for the end of Sharpton's career in regards these remarks [1]." Referencing his "bigoted" comments toward Mormons and Mitt Romney. Jaredbelch 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Strike-through text—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaredbelch (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Sounds like wishful thinking. It's not clear to me how an organization can call for somebody's career to end unless that organization (a) employs the individual or (b) kills her/him. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing (these days) Al Sharpton and Bill Donahue believe in, is $$MONEY$$. GoodDay 22:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested addition

This article should mention Bernie Goetz, the case that first made Al Sharpton famous. Suggested addition under "Activism": Al Sharpton’s first high publicity was in 1985 in the case of Bernie Goetz, who shot four unarmed black men on the New York subway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.144.51.26 (talk) 09:57, July 5, 2007

I had forgotten about Sharpton's involvement with that case. I thought his first publicity came with the killing in Howard Beach. Please add it to the article. Otherwise I'll find some sources and write it up. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure not to call them "unarmed". I recall at least one had a sharpened screwdriver he was using as a weapon.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy at the introductory paragraph violates NPOV

I move that the details of this controversy be moved later on in the article instead of placing the details of the allegations at the top, which confer upon these details an implicit confirmation of the allegations therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.185.41 (talk) 16:43, July 7, 2007

I disagree. WP:LEDE is clear: "The lead should be ... a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (emphasis mine)

So long as the lede doesn't give WP:Undue weight to parts of Al Sharpton's life in a POV fashion, or make allegations that aren't documented elsewhere in the article, it's entirely appropriate for the lede to describe the notable controversies in which Sharpton has been embroiled. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually for a BLP, these need credible sources, and should be enhanced by particulars describing the nature of the sources. For example, the first source (#58), from the Jewish World Review is an opinion piece by a journalist once dismissed for plagiarism. Number 59 is a blog, from a political blog, in other words, another opinion piece--and blogs must be tied either to the known credibility of the author (the Slate piece whether a blog or just a column, for example, is by one of their leading writers). The Slate.com piece could be prefaced by what Slate.com is, an on-line news and culture magazine, and this and the Seattle Times quotes by Alexander need to be prefaced with a note, or need to parenthetically indicate that the sources of these quotes are columns, not news stories. Please do take care of this matter, and any other references of this nature in this section. After this has been taken care of, the lead paragraph is fine as it stands, but for now, I ask, until these matters are settled, in light of this being a BLP, that the sentences surrounding this particular issue be promptly removed from the lead section. Thank you. KP Botany 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note I deleted these few sentences per WP:BLP policy, and request they not be reinserted without being sourced to news articles, not opinion pieces or blogs, although the two opinion pieces used, as I discuss above, may be used if described properly. I also flagged the article for BLP concerns because of these, as I believe the whole thing should be thoroughly checked for additional problems of this nature. KP Botany 23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree that there's a problem with these not being news sources. The article describes the sources of criticism as "some conservative and liberal commentators". Most credible news outlets would never describe somebody as racist, antisemitic, or homophobic; they might report that a person's remarks were called racist, antisemitic, or homophobic by A, B, or C. In any event, it won't be difficult to find such news sources to replace the ones you've deleted. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• BLP is really straight-forward on this point, here's a quote, with the bolding in the original, from the policy page:

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

• Well, it doesn't matter whether we agree or not about the sources as the first two are clearly self-described blogs, which are not allowed to be used, according to WP:BLP policy, as sources in BLP, they're also partisan websites, even though they are accurately described as such within this article.
• However, it won't be difficult, you are right, in the case of this particular material, to find news sites, straight news sites, that relate the quotes in a factual matter--and the article will be better for having reported the information in the most neutral manner possible, and the introductory section can then be appropriately expanded to include an introduction to this information in the article.
• I posted this quote from BLP not to be obnoxious, but just to be very clear where it comes from. It's a good policy that should be respected for all articles, not just BLPs, and I think you will be pleased with reading the resulting article once rewritten in accordance with these standards, and it will remove any need to debate the POV of the article, also. KP Botany 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sharpton apology

Sharpton says that he had admitted in his book that some of things he said in the past were wrong [2] Muntuwandi 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

POV in Duke lacrosse players section

The description of Sharpton's involvement is chock full of anti-Sharpton bias. It starts by claiming Sharpton "went on the public stage calling for the prosecution of three white Duke lacrosse players." The cited source is a transcript from an interview on the O'Reilly Factor. So, O'Reilly needed someone to debate on this issue, and he invited Sharpton to come talk about this case, how exactly does this equate to Sharpton "taking the public stage"? This makes Sharpton sound like an attention-crazed, ambulance-chaser-type, which is a common portrayal of him, but where is the evidence? Did he make statements elsewhere in the media? Can we cite these? I know for a fact that he never visited Duke because he himself admitted that he was uncertain about the guilt of the lacrosse players.

Finally, this section attempts to defame Sharpton by quoting his support for the prosecuting DA, and then describing the ethical missteps of that DA. Why is this information relevant to an article on Sharpton? So he assumed that the District Attorney was not entirely incompetent, and he was wrong, but there is no evidence of the DA's corruption when Sharpton expressed his support of him, so you cannot fault the man for believing in the DA.

Lastly, if you actually read the O'Reilly transcript that this section relies on as a source, you will see that Sharpton did NOT assume that these lacrosse players were guilty. He simply demanded that this girl receive a fair trial. He cited the fact that the authorities had charged that a crime had been committed (that was a matter of record, not his personal opinion). O'Reilly asks him flat out if he believes he knows what happened, and Sharpton clearly admits, "I don't know yet and I think that the proper thing to do is to support those that want justice."

If there is no response to this in the next few days, I will make the necessary edits to clean up the POV. Hansahni 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this: "Sharpton stressed the importance of withholding judgment before a verdict had been reached..." I don't think it is NPOV, and it should be removed. After reading through the transcript of the interview, here is what I read: Sharpton applauded those who stood up for the plaintiff. Sharpton implied that the players were guilty, because the DA had seen all the evidence in favor of the Duke lacrosse players but chose to bring the case to trial anyway. Since he knew that "this DA is probably not one that is crazy," it logically followed that there was probably enough evidence to find them guilty. It wasn't until the very end of the interview - and after prodding by O'Reilly - did Sharpton make the comment "I don't know yet and I think that the proper thing to do is to support those that want justice."

Yes, it is fact that he said that. But saying that he "stressed the importance of witholding judgement before a verdict had been reached" doesn't accurately sum up what Sharpton said before his ending statement. Rossmcd 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Sharpton?

Who the heck is Al Sharpton, that if any celbrity uses a racial comment, they have to apologize to him? If I ever used the N word in public, and I was a celbrity, I would say, Hey, I'll apologize to the specific group or individual that I insulted and THAT'S IT!! I don't owe him SHIT!!! I didnt say anything to him personally. Who apologizes to the white people? And believe me, I am not the least bit racist, but, Damn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.85.239 (talk) 06:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This is simply an article about Al Sharpton. If you want to ask him this question you might see if you can find his website and send him an e-mail. KP Botany 06:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya Sharpton is a complete idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Drug deal

Why doesn't the article have anything about Sharpton being caught in a drug sting? Here's a source: [3] - Throw 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Objection to the first sentence of the article

Al Sharpton is not a civil rights or social justice activist. The very references that the article cites indicate that he advocates for African Americans only. Thus, he is an African-American activist. In addition, "social justice" is an inherently POV term that should be removed. On a side note, one of the references (Boston.com) incorrectly states that he is a trial lawyer. He is not--Sharpton never even graduated from college, much less law school. I would like the first line modifed to reflect his racial bias or interest solely in Afican Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawagner201 (talk • contribs) 16:15, September 25, 2007

I replaced the ref with one from his organization. Here is another ref where Dartmouth invited him to speak on social justice issues:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2002/feb/021202.html

Also, in some states, you don't need to graduate from law school to become a lawyer.

--PTR 20:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is both POV and inconsistent with the rest of the article to assert that Sharpton "advocates for African Americans only". See Al Sharpton#Vieques, Al Sharpton#Gay rights, and Al Sharpton#Animal rights, or the sections about African immigrants (who generally aren't referred to as African-Americans. In any event, the phrase "civil rights" that you repeatedly have deleted links to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), so I don't understand what your objection to "civil rights" is.

The lede at social justice says that "different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes unfair treatment and an unjust share" (phrases used earlier in the lede). The article includes Father Coughlin in its discussion of social justice. I fail to see how a phrase that can include the objectives of both Sharpton and Coughlin is "an inherently POV term".

As far as Sharpton's views, the lede used to say that "Sharpton has been accused by some conservative and liberal commentators of being racist, antisemitic, and homophobic" and Accusations of racism, homophobia, and bigotry started with "Some conservative and liberal commentators have accused Sharpton of being racist, antisemitic, and homophobic". Those sentences were sourced to opinion columns, not news articles, and another editor removed them. I haven't had a chance to find better sources for those statements in order to put them back in the article. If you can find sources that satisfy Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability, reliable sources, and biographies of living people, the article can include the fact that his views have been described as racist, etc. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs)

Archiving this Talk page

As far as I can tell, this Talk page has never been archived. Some comments are from January 2004, and there may be a few that are even older. I think the page has become unreasonably long.

If nobody objects during the next few days, I'm going to archive the older messages. The page is somewhat jumbled — things aren't in chronological order — but I'll archive only threads that haven't had any discussion since xxxx. Depending on the amount of Talk that I can archive, I'll start with xxxx = January 2007. If that doesn't shorten the length of the page significantly, I'll choose a somewhat arbitrary date (e.g., 6 months ago, 4 months ago).

Thoughts? Comments? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. This talk page is ridiculously long. It's time to archive. - Throw 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've archived all messages with no replies since April 30, 2007. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sharpton works out with Joy Behar

An interesting video clip in which Whoopie Goldberg calls on Sharpton to apologize for his indictments of the Duke LaCrosse players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.221.143 (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question for Al Sharpton?

I have an interview with Al Sharpton this Saturday. If you have any questions, please leave them on my talk page. --David Shankbone 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Several references to the "Mormon" church

In the discussion on Sharpton's recent comments on Mitt Romney, at least one of the references to the Mormon church should be changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the church to which Romney belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.124.145 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I changed one reference. The other reference was a quote so I left it as is. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Crown Heights Riot Bias

This section is riddled with bias.
1.) It states the driver ran a red light. This has been debated whether he ran a red or yellow. You can't just pick a color. You must mention that it was discussed both ways and there has been no conclusion.

2.) It convieniently omits telling the reader that the Jewish man was removed first because he was being beaten by a black mob. It only states that he was removed because they feared for his saftey. This is intentionally written in a way to make it seem that he was given preferential treatment. He was not. When the first ambulance arrived, the man was pulled from the mob that was trying to kill him. During this time, another group of people were trying to lift the car to remove the boy. Certainly not an ambulance drivers job. So they took the very first victim that was resonably possible to remove. The boy was still wedged under the car. How was he supposed to be taken first??

3.) It is intentionally written that a "private" ambulance was sent to "rescue" the "jew". Whereas it was a private ambulance, it was also a volunteer ambulance. Using the word "private" ambulance insteas of "volunteer" is done to provoke improper thoughts about what actually happened.

3.) "Sharpton, who arranged a rally in Crown Heights after Cato's death,[34] has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions by making remarks that included "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house"[38] and referring to Jews as "diamond merchants."[39]" I thought it was against wiki rules to say things like "some people" because that can't be proven. I think "some commentators" should be omitted. It would seem commen sense to state "Sharptons comments such as "blah" and "blah" inflamed tensions. You can't say that getting up on your soap box and making racists statements does not inflame tensions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.218.226 (talk) 22:03, January 10, 2008

1. The description of the facts, or disputed facts, in this section should be similar to Crown Heights Riot.
2. This section is a relatively small part of a biography, and it can't repeat every detail of the riot. That's why there's a link to the main article. Since this article is about Al Sharpton, and not the Crown Heights Riot, the focus of the section should be on Sharpton's role.
3. I don't think Wikipedia policy supports a categorical statement that "Sharpton's statements inflamed tensions" unless it's attributed to a source: "According to xxx, Sharpton's statements inflamed tensions".
4. WP:BE BOLD and start making the changes you would like to see. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not as familiar with wiki as most. Nor am I a competent writer. Would rather someone else take on that task. In addition, someone is now trying to ban my IP based on my comments in here. Nice. 71.239.218.226 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe someone is trying to ban your IP, and why do you assume it is because of these comments? I seen nothing in your discussion page that would indicate that you've be banned, and no block log exists for your IP address. NoHenry (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Because when I came back on, it said that an IP Ban on my address is not recommended because my IP is likely to change. However, I have had this IP for years and no one else is using it. And I know it if due to my comments on here because I rarely post anything to wiki. 71.239.218.226 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The template on your user page is a very common one and is used to identify IPs from companies which may dynamically allocate addresses, such as Comcast. It serves as a warning not to its current user but to administrators and other users that any messages or warnings put on the page may not be seen by their intended recipient. Not only is it routine that messages like this appear on user pages, but the admin who put it there placed several dynamic IP notifications during the same general time, so you certainly weren’t being targeted. Your explanation as to why it happened is not convincing, but it doesn’t matter since you’re not anywhere close to being banned.

You've mentioned that you're not familiar with wiki. One of its fundamental principles is to assume good faith. Edits on your talk page are almost always not attempts to silence you but efforts to make you a more effective editor. NoHenry (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a sub article, you should use WP:Summary guidelines. Put the summary paragraph of the sub article in this with a link to the subarticle.--PTR (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs a citation

Per BLP, please provide a citation (and perhaps more information as to what kind of caricature the character was given Sharpton's controversial image): The character the Reverend Bacon in the Tom Wolfe novel The Bonfire of the Vanities is based on Sharpton. Thompsontough (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

links to stories on IRS investigatin and marital dispute

The article leaves out the IRS investigations (here's a NY Time article) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07EED61E3DF931A25754C0A9659C8B63 and the reason for the breakup of his marriage (here's a village voice article http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0449,barrett,59023,5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.225.123 (talk) 16:58, January 19, 2008

The first one is just about an investigation and is not noteworthy unless something came of the investigation and the second does not say specifically the reason for the breakup of the marriage. --PTR (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with PTR that any mention of this would require that the outcome of the investigation be included. Also, you've missed something even more important that is mentioned in your link, that he was indicted but acquited for fraud. I don't see this mentioned anywhere. (Happy MLK Day, anonymous!) 130.156.29.112 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)