Talk:Al Sharpton

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

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 were 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).[reply]

old

This article is seriously lacking in sources and the "sources" that are provided are trenched with bias. It needs many sources for the serious charges being dished out against this man, and objective ones at that. The author of this piece apparently had an agenda in mind. It comes across as very negative and condescending. You may not like Al Sharpton. I don't either. But, let's be fair in how we go about writing his Wiki article. Intentionally spreading misinformation is a vandalism in Wikipedia's policy and considered "libel" according to the law. - JC 4/24/06 - 5:09 PST

---

This is the most biased article I have ever read.

---

As one who has never read anything about Al Sharpton, this article seems to paint him as anti-semitic, without clearly stating any arguments for that point. POV? User:Greggae

Is it me, or is the whole article an anti-Al piece? -- User:Varitek

Its you--69.177.44.183 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just you. This is a laundry list of stupid allegations scooped up from god-knows-where. Probably two-thirds of it has little basis in fact.

I am sorry to butt into such a nice little convo you fellas got going here, but I think all the so called accusations listed in the article AND those that were deleted by persons claiming to uphold the NPOV policy, are pretty much conforming to other sources online and off, and should be restored. And Mr John Doe up there, who thinks two-thirds of it "probably" has little basis in fact - please be so kind and follow the links the author has put in the article, or, better yet, google for the intel. After all, this site is trying - albeit unsuccessfully at times - to serve as an encyclopaedia, not as a posting board where you state your opinion on the "probability" of a subject. I would like to second Spikey's sentiment about reorganising the article, but would someone please go over the deleted FACTS about the reverend Mr Sharpton in the history pages of the article and restore whatever is verifiable. (BTW I am a Jew who grew up in Brooklyn, and remembers the impact of Mr Sharpton on the interracial mood in my immediate vicinity. And that thing about not stating any arguements for the point by User:Greggae - the point was argued finely by the article originally a coupla hundred edits before, and was since deleted.) --Cockneyite 02:18 GMT 3 Jan 2006

I agree. To restate the words of another user: NPOV does not mean no point of views or neutral points of view, it means neutral presentation of POVs. If claims against Al (1) are phrased in a NPOV manner (e.g. "some people claim"), and (2) are thoroughly cited (in the cases of Al Sharpton they are rather excessively cited), it is dishonest and absurd to remove them. Yid613 06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "some people claim" are weasel words and unhelpful. And how can an article claim to be NPOV if the majority of the article is about "controversies" which are nothing more than a list of things the writers don't like about Al Sharpton. Of course they have their place in an article about him. However, as someone who a lot of people look up to and who has accomplished a great deal and helped a lot of people, I think there is an unnecessary focus on these "controversies" by people who want to defame him. 71.232.30.121 15:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article could use some reorginization. I sure am helpful, huh? I'm pretty bad at that sort of thing. But if someone feels up to it, it would do a great deal of good. Or at least a good deal of great. --Spikey 18:57, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In response to comments above, I agree that this article is very un-NPOV. Tuf-Kat 06:35, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Since I have added the eutrality disclaimer, I feel obliged to be more specific here:

In the 1980s he was known as the well-fed preacher in the brightly colored jogging suit with the lacquered pompadour hair-do who was involved in the racially charged Tawana Brawley rape hoax -- this is a sentence out of some bizarre film noir, not an encylopedia article.

Since the mid 1990s, the former child preacher and civil rights activist has tried to moderate his rhetoric in the hopes of becoming a respected statesmen Implies that one needs to "moderate" "rhetoric" in order to become a "respected" statesmen (sic). I, for one among many, would prefer to see unmoderated rhetoric from statesmen.

As a child Sharpton was obsessed with preaching, going on tour with Mahalia Jackson and others. Or perhaps he was a devout and reverent Christian who liked gospel music. Obsessed implies some kind of psychiatric disorder which has not been proven (nor even seriously claimed, AFAIK).

The later years section contains the following facts:

Sharpton was involved in some complex drug money laundering issue that is somehow related to working undercover for the FBI on some un-named subject, and a lawsuit to HBO over what I can only presume is the FBI video (how the hell did HBO get it?)
Sharpton who is "brash and outspoken", rose to prominence after speaking out against the white mob responsible for the death of a black man. How could someone be "brash and outspoken" over that, one wonders... How "inspoken" is appropriate for racially-inspired murder?
Oh, but, the "most controversial" issue Sharpton has been involved in is his defense of a woman who claimed to have been sodomized by several police officers. By the way, the rape never happened and Sharpton continued to make "wild claims" and compared a Jew to Hitler. He also accused Mario Cuomo of "ties to organized crime". For reasons I can't possibly imagine, he has never recanted any of these accusations.
Lost a lawsuit from the above-rape victim's prosecutor over something he said which is quoted only in a highly-abbreviated form contained several ellipses, sourced to some website which does not itself include sources and presents a clear point-of-view.
Sharpton apparently doesn't like "diamond merchants", like the Hasidic Jews, especially the one who carelessly killed a black child through his own incompetence... Surprisingly enough, Sharpton is opposed to the careless murder of black children, and even launched a civil suit against the one who did the killing! Imagine that!
- You forgot the part when Sharpton responded to the incident by peddling anti-Semitic remarks such as "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house" and "Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights"; and a black mob answered by murdering an innocent Rabbinical student in cold blood. Yes imagine that indeed. Apparently in the mind of some, a reckless unintentional (and therefore having no racial or ethnic basis) accident with a black victim is more horrific than the cold-blooded hate-based intentional murder of a Jew. It seems that if the article is anti-Al, it is not because its writers are biased, but because the facts themselves are anti-Al. BTW, your term "careless murder" is completely false regarding the Cato incident. Murder requires intent to kill. Calling things whatever you want in order to further an agenda maybe be typical of demagogues like Sharpton, but it isn't necessary on wikipedia.
  - First thing first, after I talked to several witnesses at the scene, the driver of the car was intoxicated. The accident was a result of him driving through an intersection on a red light. The two cars crashed, sending one onto the side walk pinning Gavin Cato and his sister under the car. From this point on, the obvious decision would be to attend to the young children still pinned up by the car, however the police officer ordered the first ambulance (whether the vehicle was Jewish or public should not matter when human lives are involved) to attend to the man in the car, while Gavin Cato was left there. Al Sharpton simply voiced the opinions of the community and had nothing to do with the riot.
I have no idea what the paragraph regarding his stabbing means. As a licensed EMT, I am aware that clothes are often cut off in providing treatment. I see scant reason why his leather jacket should need to be cut off, however, though I suppose it depends on where he was stabbed. In any case, if Sharpton was able to "jump off the gurney" and take his own coat off... nevermind, I can't possibly reconcile that with reality. If he "jumped off the gurney" before treatment began, then there was no gurney to jump off of. If he did so after treatment began, the jacket was either already removed or deemed irrelevant. EMTs don't filly-fart around with debating whether or not cut a particular piece of clothing. They may have told him they were going to cut the jacket off, and he may have been capable of removing it, but not before they put him on a gurney (if the jacket needed to be removed, it would be part of the first actions of emergency treatment in order to get at the wound, and would not wait for the victim to be placed on a gurney). The external link does not provide any special help in deciphering this paragraph, or what its purpose is, and the leather jacket is not mentioned.
Sharpton protested a Jew who raised rent on a black tenant. At some point later, somebody murdered the Jew -- and BTW, Sharpton later denied involvement.
He tried to keep Amadou Diallo protests peaceful.

Tuf-Kat 08:00, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of revision to make it more neutral, but I fixed the quote about "terrorists" to add context.

[160,000 m²]. Dumbass.

I would also like to chip in that Al Sharpton stood and applauded Khalid Abdul Muhammad, the notorious racist anti-semite, at the Million Youth March in Harlem, when he was making openly anti-semitic remarks. So I don't quite see how anyone is going to defend Sharpton's past.

Quote Section

I disagree with the quote section in this article. The quote section has little useful purpose, except to portray Sharpon as foolish and contribute to the general negativity of this article on the part of the author/s. Just to confirm my supposition I checked out the George W. Bush article and it contains no section on the notable remarks made by Bush, even though Bush's remarks even garnered their own moniker, "Bushism", a term that made its way into popular vernacular.

I just wanted to comment that there is a reason for all behavior. Mr Sharpton did experience a dramatic change in his childhood, I wondered how it affected his mother loosing her husband to her daughter. Kinda of makes you think about Mia Farrow and Woody Allen triangle. A large number of men seem to go through the change of life thing regardless of their cultural background. And more and more people are starting to realize that everything that we do effects our family indirectly or directly, but that it does affect them.

POV section

This sounded a little too pro-Sharpton

Sharpton's platform includes 10 key issues:

Increase voter registration.
Increase political consciousness and awareness.
Stimulate more people to get involved in the political process.
Raise issues that would otherwise be overlooked—for example, affirmative action and anti-death penalty policy.
Strengthen our national security by fighting for human rights, the rule of law, and economic justice at home and abroad.
Fight to ensure women's rights.
Deliver Universal Health Care for the nation, not hidden benefits to the health care industry.
Provide a solution to the current educational crisis in the nation caused by Bush.
Help working people by giving them the biggest tax cuts - not the rich.
Fulfill American democracy by supporting voting rights or statehood for the 600,000 disenfranchised citizens of the District of Columbia.

(My emphasis added)

I hate Sharpton but that is just a statement of facts - redman1936

I agree that these 10 points are a little arbitrary and seem to have been copied from any left-wing campaign brochure. I couldn't find anything resembling this list at ontheissues.org, which might not be the end-all of sources but certainly seems accurate for the mainline candidates. If somebody can find a source to cite, please feel free to put it back.Wesbo 03:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Al edits

I'm not a big fan of the guy, but this seems out of place. The whole first paragraph seems wrong and in broken english: Thats because Al wrote it...he doesn't have an education...just a ticket that he uses to stir up hatred

What are we going to do about Al he need to ask his wife for so many years to forgive him because he was just chasing ass , tail I would not be suprise if he is Gay, homosexual.

--68.0.21.247 02:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tawana Brawley?

Where's the section on the Brawley case, and how Sharpton destroyed Steven Pagones' life? I see political correctness is alive and well at Wikipedia.

Really, guys, you'll never get taken seriously by anyone other than college political science professors at this rate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.201.208.254 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 August 2005.

In the time it took you to write that, you could have improved the article by contributing your knowledge to the article. Be bold and add the information yourself. I've already linked to the Tawana Brawley article, since the link was conspicuously missing. The information there seems to be fairly thorough. —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, I get it. CNN and the New York Times are "crdible 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.

Same old double standard

He's a black David Duke, plain and simple, with the difference that David Duke never instigated a pogrom. This article shows America's most clownish black nationalist in a ludicrously positive light.

If this guy was white, every tenth word in the article would be "neo-nazi", "supremacist", "extremist", "far-right", etc.

I would like to remind other editors to sign your posts on talk pages. You just need to add four tildes (~~~~) to your edit. Thank you. Thane Eichenauer 20:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still no concrete evidence

All of the sources are opinion pieces, from right-wing authors. I'm going to remove it until it can be proved. --Revolución (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They may be opinion pieces, but they do contain what they claim to be direct quotes, which comprise a large portion of the excised "Alleged bigotry" section. Do you doubt the veracity of the quotes, or do you think they have perhaps been taken out of context? I don't have any strong feelings on this section one way or the other; just playing Devil's Advocate here. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the veracity of the quotes. --Revolución (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News and National Review may be biased against Sharpton, but they don't generally just make things up. Hereis a Village Voice story that discusses the "white interloper" incident. [1].--Pharos 20:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay, fine. Maybe that is true after all, but the other accusations are yet to be proven. --Revolución (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the paragraph. I think the paragraph is NPOV and the fact that the accusations have to be proven is clear with the insertion of the word "Alleged". --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so it stays even though almost all of the allegations haven't been backed up with evidence? --Revolución (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the references provided constitute some kind of evidence. I'd like to see the "New York Times" quoted as well, but I don't think any of us is qualified to disqualify a valid source. The little renown of the sources is why the "alleged" wording and the POV tag are there. I think it's as fair as it gets. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested removal of non-documented allegations of racial slur usage

I would like to recommend removal of the quote

It is alleged that Sharpton throughout his political career has called whites "crackers" and Jews "diamond merchants," "white interlopers," and "bloodsucking Jews." Sharpton's criticism of black Marxists extended to them carrying "that German cracker's book under their arms."

from the article until such time as there is at least one documented source to them. Hopefully then we can drop the NPOV-section tag. Thane Eichenauer 00:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You actually added the link to the source for "white interloper" to the article. What kind of documented sources where you referring to? The one you added is actually the only source I found moderately respectable, I haven't read WP:RS in depth until now. However, the item "6. Verifiability, not truth", may come into place as well as "5. Dubious Söurces". Can we ask somebody outside the usual editors of this page to rate the sources to see if they pass their bar? --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk

Yes, I did. However the first paragraph in the section, with the several bigoted terms (all save 'white interloper') none of which is documented in the references, can probably be removed after any interested editor has has an opportunity to review the paragraph, leaving the second paragraph intact as it has been documented. Thane Eichenauer 05:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I will remove the tag, then. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Ok, enough with the links to external places. This article is starting to look like it has a lot of Original Research. Also, please read WP:NOT, links should be balanced and few.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverend" and other questions?

The article starts out too naively about the man. In other words, what accredited seminary "ordained” the nine-year old? (For those who don't know, seminary comes after graduation from college.) It also ascribes to him the religious denomination of “Pentecostal” but offers no connection between him and the Pentecostal movement, nor any standing within any of the Pentecostal organizational bodies. The article also does not mention that he does not have a church, nor does he preach on Sunday, nor does he attend regular church service, nor does he even belong to a church.

Yet it refers to him as “Reverend.”

Further, where does he live and where is his National Action Network headquartered? There’s no mention of any of those subjects. After all, when he referred to white business owners in Harlem as "interlopers," he was living in New Jersey.

And to those who object to facts about the man being included, you must not know that the massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart was a race-based attack by a follower of “Reverend” Al. Maybe you weren't aware of that because the media didn’t pay much attention to it, but can you imagine the hue and cry if the races had been reversed and a white racist had massacred seven black people? Can you imagine the wall to wall, banner headline, 24/7/365 press coverage Sharpton would have garnered over that crime? After all, the Tawana Brawley fraud dominated the headlines in this city for most of a whole year. (A single allegation of rape, not the actual murder of seven people and the arson of the store.)

Further, the white owner of Freddy’s was not himself raising the rent on the black store owner who sublet space from Freddy’s, but merely passing on the rent increase imposed on Freddy’s by the black church who owned the building.

There’s also no mention of the shakedowns of corporations, which is how Sharpton makes his real money. The money with which he buys his $800 suits. (He famously said that he doesn’t own the suits, but that National Action Network owns them and he just wears them.)

Finally, it’s minor but one of the reasons investigators first suspected that Brawley’s “attack” was a fraud was because the swastika (symbol of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party during World War II) was drawn backwards on her body, indicating that the person who drew it (Brawley) did not know it’s true shape. Eagle in NYC 11:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find credible, factual sources to support some of these things, you should definitely be bold and mention them in the article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please clean up all the 'liar' references?

POV Check!

The most recent edits seem to be considerably biased against Sharpton, and are also likely to be inaccurate. Could somebody check this? Roy Al Blue 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This piece does not strike me as being anti Sharpton. There are a lot of people here who simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Nagaflas 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Al Blue, when you add the POV-check you should be more specific than you were above. There's also "TotallyDisputed" and "Disputed" templates that might apply here. The burden is on the user who adds the template point out the reason for adding it. patsw 04:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politician?

What appointive or elective office has Al Sharpton held? What office did he run for in which he had any possibility of winning?

He's an activist, either a political activist or a civil rights activist, and the label of politician is inaccurate. patsw 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patsw: are you the final arbiter of who "has a chance" in all political races? Sharpton's been in countless candidate forums/debates, he has been on numerous primary ballots for various races, etc. He is a politician, although he is not an elected politician (Sharpton has never been successful at gaining political office). Dick Clark 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually serve to be a politician. I can run for school trustee in my hometown every few years for the next twenty (all times unsuccessful), but that doesn't make me a politician--especially considering I hold down a day-job. alex 02:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to actually come to Sharpton's defense, but it would appear that describing him as a 'politician' is accurate, at least according to the politician on wiki.

A politician is an individual who is a formally recognized and active member of a government, or a person who influences the way a society is governed through an understanding of political power and group dynamics. This includes people who hold decision making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, coup d'etat, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, right of inheritance (see also: divine right), etc. A politician can also include a person who is active in party politics, or a person who has the power to galvanize public opinion. Members of the government who serve purely functional roles, such as low ranking bureaucrats, or ordinary citizens with the power to vote cannot properly be called politicians.

However, I should add that, realistically (and God willing), he will never win a race for public office. Not that he wouldn't fit right in... Grammaticus Repairo 06:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing links

Why remove links? Are the linked articles inaccurate? Or are the opinion pieces somehow mislabeled as news reporting?

If the section needs any editing it is to remove the alleged. Sharpton hasn't denied that it is his distinctive voice on the tape at the Feddies Fashion Mart. His support of African-American boycott of Korean-owned businesses in Brooklyn isn't disputed either.

patsw 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citations should be evidence. The New York Times piece at SFGATE and the Villiage Voice piece, and the Jewish Post transcripts are reporting. Links to opinion pieces should go in the external links if you think they are worthwhile.

Ortcutt 19:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia styleguide requires or even suggests that citations should be evidence? The linked articles are accurate and relevant which is the standard for inclusion as I understand it. Since the articles are written some time after the boycotts they reflect information not known 24 hours after the deadly arson of December 8, 1995.

Are you denying or doubtful that Sharpton had a role in the boycotts of Freddies Fashion Mart and the Korean grocer boycott, or stating that the accounts in the article now are inaccurate? patsw 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying anything about the truth of the claims, but someone who didn't believe these claims wouldn't believe them after reading a column that made the claims in question. I just don't understand what the columns add in terms of establishing these claims that the NYT piece doesn't already provide. The problem with any particular column isn't that the claims are false, but that the lax standards for claims made in columns means they add nothing in terms of the credibility of the claims.

Ortcutt 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Readded section on bigotry

That section did not deserve to be removed from the page. Regardless of other editors' wishes, the fact that there is well-documented evidence pertaining to his anti-Semitism negates editors' abilities to whine about POV. If the shoe fits, let him wear it. Based on his quotes, he seems to wear his anti-semitic badge with honour. --Michaelk 03:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you show some references on the talk page that detail this? I'll believe it when I see some evidence from credible sources. And it would be nice if you didn't turn this into a personal attack. I am committed to making articles unbiased, even if they do not agree with my viewpoint.

EDIT: I'm also noticing that the citation for these assertions comes from either opinion/editorial articles, or National Review. I could be wrong here, but wouldn't it make sense to get sources from actual reports on what's going on? Saying that Al Sharpton caused that massacre is like saying that Bill Clinton caused 9/11. Protesting outside a business or building does not equate to encouraging violence.

Mister Mister 04:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion in those articles is formed around factual events that took place. His quotes and actions can't be misinterpreted here, so the whole "taken out of context" BS argument just doesn't fly. Regardless of whether YOU consider them factual, they are valid sources. They do express opinions, but readers can disseminate fact from opinions that accompany them. If you can't do that, then don't edit this page. --Michaelk 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they're being represented in the article as fact, rather than an opinion. And why is it that all of them seem to be coming from opinion/editorial articles? Could you answer me that, instead of just insulting me for asking a question?

Mister Mister 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I apologize for that. I'm just shocked to see how this article has been completely stripped of facts using that lameduck excuse of "POV". The facts are the facts, and they are cited in those articles. Those facts are then used to bolster an opinion in those articles. The POV argument only applies to Wiki, not to the sources. Were it not the case, all articles could be argued to be violating NPOV. As I've stated above, the articles contain facts and occurrences that are fully documented. That they express an opinion in regards to Mr. Sharpton's actions is besides the point. What matters is that the facts themselves are stated there. I think that's the third time in this paragraph that I've reiterated my point. I'm a little disappointed to see the part of him directing the Crown Heights Riots removed, but I'm only one man, after all... --Michaelk 19:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing. Do these articles give sources for the "facts" (I'm sorry if the quotations seem a bit rude, that's just the only way to really get my point across) listed in them? I mean, if we had some actual reports discussing racist comments or activities conducted by Al Sharpton, then we'd have a clearly justifiable reason for listing them. However, I just don't see how we can take an entire op/ed piece as fact. Opinion pieces, for the most part, usually aren't a totally objective source, and they can use information out of context, or false information, if it will serve the writer's viewpoint. I'm not saying that all of these things are untrue, I just don't think we can totally rely on these articles to be objective. Now, if we listed these things as conservative criticisms of Al Sharpton, rather than assertions that are universally true for everyone, that would work.

Mister Mister 20:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that. Conservative criticism is fine, but I just don't want them written out as they were last time. This whole article became a puff piece for him, downplaying his racist past. Don't worry, I didn't imply rudeness from the quotes. If you'd like, please reword the paragraph as you see fit. --Michaelk 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like how everytime someone edits this and tries to make it you know...neutral someone changes it to exactly how it was before without explanation. Good job editors.

I like how you don't sign your msgs, and hide behind anonymity. Neutrality does not trump the facts, good sir. If you prefer neutrality, consider moving to Switzerland and, above all, avoid editing any articles on Wikipedia because your contempt for the truth is quite plain. --Michaelk 07:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite sources

Whether positive or negative, just cite the sources. Nothing should be censored or removed just because it's negative. Al Sharpton has been involved in different situations just as many other famous figures have. Their wiki shows it and so should his, but concrete sources need to be there. Iansanderson 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie's Fashion Mart

I changed a reference to the shop owner as "the Jew". I know it's not universal but in American Enlish refering to someone as "a Jew" or "the Jew" rather than "Jewish" sounds vaguely anti-semetic. That part of the article could also use some clarification by someone who knows what happened. I infer that the shop owner in quesiton ran Freddies Fashion Mart but that's not clear from the article nor is why Sharpton and a crowd were there. Was it just some random observation of Als while shopping or was it a protest.

Someone deleted this section as vandalism. Although the last version was heavily POV and unsourced, the riot following Sharpton's "white interloper" comment was a real event of significance, and has been mentioned in the Christian Science Monitor,[2] National Review,[3] and the Boston Phoenix,[4] three politically diverse sources. We should attempt a fact-based narrative of this event. Djcastel 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Height Riot

Someone removed the information on the Crown Heights Riot and left a see Crown Heights Riot page. Each article should stand on its own. Its OK to link to other articles and when I reverted the change I left the link in to the other article but we need a summary of that Riot here as well due to Rev Sharptons actions and relationship to the riot Michaelh613 04:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)michaelh613[reply]

I had removed the article and replaced it with the link because there was not enough context in the article about the riots. The article was written biased against Sharpton cherry picked elements of the case. For instance the article fails to mention by name, Gavin Cato, the Guyanese boy who was killed in the car accident that sparked the riot. Rewritten without bias, the article about the riots is necessary Muntuwandi 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What context would you be looking to add. There is not much to every justify a racist riot anymore than lynching. If you wish to add context do so but do not vandalize the article by replacing it with a link. I don't believe there is anything cherry picked about the unbiased factual inforamtion ptu there. However if you want to flesh it out do so. Michaelh613 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)michaelh613[reply]

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

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies - POV

This article is 70% controversies. It's not well balanced and some of the cites don't match with what it says in the paragraph. The citations for the following don't mention any of Sharpton's actions/words stated in the text.

It is also alleged that after calling a Jewish shopkeeper a "white interloper," he looked on while an associate of his suggested the man's shop should be burned down. When a black member of the crowd did so, killing several people and himself, Sharpton initially denied having been present. When confronted with a video tape showing his presence, he said: "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" Sharpton later apologized for his remarks. Other such controversies center on purported offenses by Jews against black Americans, although in one case it is alleged he verbally attacked Korean shopkeepers. [5] [6]

I think we either need to rewrite the paragraph or find citations that say what the paragraph says.

Also the tone of the controversies is POV - not just stating facts but editorializing. It needs to be made more encyclopedic and shortened. --PTR 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sources don't match, and let's be sure on tone. As for shortening, I'm not so sure. Love him or hate him, the guy is controversial. IronDuke 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for more sources... IronDuke 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is controversial but the Political Activism section is merely fact driven and mostly encyclopedic with very little National Enquirer type inference writing. The cite you found is by Jonah Goldberg not exactly an impartial, main stream writer and none of the articles say, "he looked on while an associate of his suggested the man's shop should be burned down."

Now I don't love him or hate him but most controversies have two sides and one of the articles says he apologized for the "interloper" remark. That should be included. --PTR 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From NR: "Eventually, he decided to apologize-but only for saying "white," not "interloper." We can include that, I guess, if the point is important enough. Jonah Goldberg is notable on this issue. A partisan? Most likely. But he doesn't have to adhere to NPOV to be included in WP, only us. Then there's this: " Sharpton's colleague, Morris Powell, said of the Jewish owner-Sharpton's "white interloper"-"We're going to see that this cracker suffers. Reverend Sharpton is on it."" Putting that quote in might be a good addition. IronDuke 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a similiar discussion on the Hannity page regarding biased sources. Other editors want to use Media Matters for Hannity which is biased against him. Part of WP:BLP says to not use biased sources if possible.

In any case the Villiage Voice cite says he apologized for using "white interloper" and there still is no mention of him looking on while an associate suggests burning the shop. That is just not in any of the citations.

I don't agree with putting in the quote either. That's something someone else said, not Sharpton. --PTR 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VV is as biased as Goldberg. But we're not putting in opinion here, I hope, but fact. The NR quote is the most specific about just how he apologized, so I'm guessing it's the most accurate. We could have both, but I don't really see that the point is large enough to have a huge digression on it. The other quote I put above was to support the graf as written. IronDuke 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True they are both biased and one says, "...he apologized only for saying "white," not "interloper." and the other says, "...Sharpton, who apologized for calling Harari "a white interloper" during demonstrations at the height of the boycott, confirmed that Harari asked him to mediate the ongoing dispute with Powell..." which doesn't show specificity for one as the most accurate over the other. The graf as currently written includes text not included in the citations. I basically don't care what's written there but what is there should be explicitly supported by the citations and it should be even handed, not a laundry list of bad things. Doesn't Jimbo want the controversy woven in instead of in one section? --PTR 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, yes, although there are many exceptions. The only way to do that here would be taking his life chronologically, I think. A lot of work, but if you want to do it, I'll try to help. IronDuke 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. I can get started tomorrow. I'll take it slow at first since this is such a touchy article. --PTR 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but why is his stance on Gay Rights under the heading of "Controversy"? Someone's stance on a certain social issue, no matter how controversial, do not necessarily make it a "Controversy". And his stance is not even controversial.Jhawk1024 20:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jhawk1024 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpton web site?

Does Al Sharpton have a personal or official web site? The one linked in the article looks like it points at a domain squatter. The second one is about a talk show and looks somewhat spammy. I'm going to remove the first one and re-label the second, I guess. 67.117.130.181 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I don't want to disturb any political balance here, the two "biographical" extlinks look like useless fluff, superfluous given the content of the wikipedia article. I'm thinking of removing them as linkspam, unless someone objects. 67.117.130.181 07:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they confirm any part of the article, I would not see them as superfluous linkspam and would keep them. It is better to link to some low-quality biographies than to link to none. Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.170.211 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That is the opposite of the right thing to do. Jasper23 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard E. Jordan

An anonymous user keeps including a paragraph of Sharpton endorsing Bernard Jordan on BET. There is no citation to this endorsement only a citation to a birthday party. This should not be included without citations of the endorsement and I can find none on google.--PTR 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly NPOV

This sentence is extremely NPOV, and a lot of the rest of the article reads very critically as well. This needs to be fixed.

"Sharpton has been critical of the news media, charging it with ignoring his campaign due to deep-seated racial prejudiceeven though he pratices prejudice every day through hate just as many media sources."

Resistor 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted it. Shakam 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know would even think of voting for AS... to me he seems to be the modern day Archie Bunker....

Not to be a stickler, but you meant to say "Badly POV". NPOV = Neutral Point of View, which is what we strive for. ;-) --Bobak

Removed section

I removed this section from the article for multiple reasons. First, the NYPost is hardly a reliable source and the article appears to be something of a gossip column. Second, shouldnt we wait to see if this is picked up at a greater volume by the MSM. Third, the first part of the article is poorly written and does not match the source material. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Text follows:

Attitude toward Barack Obama According to the NY Post, the Rev. Al Sharpton has launched a "big-time" effort to tear down Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate for president, The Post has learned. "He's saying that Obama never did anything for the community, never worked with anybody from the community, that nobody knows the people around him, that he's a candidate driven by white leadership," said a prominent black Democratic activist who knows Sharpton. [7] According to CNN, Sharpton has denied being jealous of Obama, saying that "I want to talk about a civil rights agenda as a priority, and the answer to that is not, 'Oh if you want to talk about issues you must be jealous'." Sharpton has suggested an Obama operative planted the story. [8] End text. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about what you’ve done, for multiple reasons.

“the NYPost is hardly a reliable source”

Well, it’s actually quite reliable--CNN wouldn't be quoting them if they weren't. Is it slanted? I think so. I also think The New York Times, the BBC, al Jazeera, and the Jerusalem Post are slanted as well. It’s up to readers to make decisions about competing, mainstream sources (and yes, NYPost is mainstream).

“the article appears to be something of a gossip column”

I don’t know what this means, I’ll just dispense with it by saying, no, it is not a gossip column. Dicker reports (as I said in my edit summary) on state and local politics.

“shouldnt we wait to see if this is picked up at a greater volume by the MSM”

That’s what the CNN cite I provided is for.

“the first part of the article is poorly written and does not match the source material”

So fix it.

I’m not sure why you are removing sourced, highly relevant, balanced information, and I don’t want to speculate. I’d just like to ask that you stop, or give some better reason why it should remain out. Thanks. IronDuke 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think all my points stand. I would really hate to speculate why you are fixing up a troll's edit and don't even correct the glaring mistakes in the first section. You are absolutely correct, the NYPOST is equally slanted with the BBC and NYT and absolutely just as mainstream. All of the unnamed sources make the article extremely verifiable and nothing like a "he said she said" gossip column. The google news search that picked up 5 or 6 articles convinced me of the notability of this subject. I bow before your magnifigance of opinion. If you want to add the troll section to the article, that is fine. However, you must fix it. Not me. And also ask yourself is this improving the article or is it something that won't be remembered two months from now and was only inserted into the article by someone with a axe to grind. Are you an admin yet? Jiffypopmetaltop 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not an admin yet, sad to say. I will interpret your post above as being okay with my reverting (with a fix). Thanks for talking it through. IronDuke 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why? You should probably fix it before putting it back in. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The fixing and the putting it back in will occur simultaneously. IronDuke 00:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps too much has been removed

Now the entry makes no sense. We have Sharpton responding, but we don't say what he is responding to. This entire incident begins with the NYPost. That can't be avoided. I thought we had an agreement... it would be good if you would restore what you have removed. If you want to add context you feel is missing, please be my guest. IronDuke 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the history, I believe you have violated 3RR. Self-reverting would probably be a good idea here. I'm going to leave this on your talk page as well. IronDuke 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Bio article. The text relating to the NYPOST article needs to be properly referenced to the article. That means that the text must closely match the source. Anything less will not fly on a bio article. This should have been fixed on the talk page before going back into the article. I removed this because it needs to match the source and also so you can see the part of the article that needs fixing. I also don't know why you added extra sources? Doesn't make any sense. Also, I have not violated the 3rr. Look closer. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I take that back. The part I removed was pure 100% plagiarism. God the NYP can't write. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, the CNN story is like three weeks old! I have never heard of this "controversy". Wow! Jiffypopmetaltop 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution attributable to a reliable source

Misunderstanding

Jiffy, I'm not sure why you moved that section. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. It is this; in addition to other edits, you removed a section that had been in this article for over a year, with no discussion on talk that I can discern. When I restored that section, you demanded I justify myself on talk. I think it might be more helpful if you could say why you deleted what you deleted without simply quoting "BLP, BLP" over and over again. Please be specific. IronDuke 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pov writing with some pov content and poorly sourced. For example: Capitalism magazine is not a reliable source. Adding the Anti-semitism tag. Putting in a poorly attributed quote from the RNC that labels Sharpton as an antisemetic jew killer. Events that had little to do with Sharpton and have been cherry picked to show him in the worst possible light. You did not restore a section that had been in the article for a year. You restored a section that had been removed for months. Especially the anti-semetism tag. Seemed like the beginning of a revert war meant to bring out 3rr violations. You discussed nothing on the talk page and discontinued our previous conversation. So discuss before you put in. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Let me try to take it point by point.

”Pov writing with some pov content and poorly sourced.”

Okay. What writing is POV, in what way is it POV, and is every source that you’ve taken out in your opinion a bad one? If not, which are the bad ones?

”Adding the Anti-semitism tag.”

As I argued before (in the very section you moved) this tag isn’t meant to express that AS is an antisemite, merely that he is bound up in the subject (which is undeniable). Note: I’ve never tried to put the “Antisemitic people” tag on his article, as that’s in dispute.

”Events that had little to do with Sharpton and have been cherry picked to show him in the worst possible light.”

I disagree with your assessment. I think you may lack a certain degree of knowledge about New York City history and politics. The things you’ve removed, e.g., his role in the Freddy’s Fashion Mart incident, are well-documented, and well-sourced, and highly-relevant. If you like, we could try to put all the incidents under one subheading, something like “Relations with Jews.”

”You did not restore a section that had been in the article for a year.”

I did indeed do just what I said. You removed sections (including Freddy's and Crown Heights) in January of this year with an alternate account over the course of several edits. This is what the article looked two years previous to that: [9]. The information has been taken out and put back in more than once, but in the main, consensus has favored keeping in some form of it. I’m happy to work with you to decide what form that will be, but the information is relevant and should be in in some form.

”Seemed like the beginning of a revert war meant to bring out 3rr violations.”

I’m sorry you feel that way. It was certainly not my intention.

”You discussed nothing on the talk page and discontinued our previous conversation.”

In our previous conversation, you said: “The google news search that picked up 5 or 6 articles convinced me of the notability of this subject. I bow before your magnifigance of opinion. If you want to add the troll section to the article, that is fine. However, you must fix it. Not me.” I did fix it. And yet, contrary to our agreement, you removed what I’d done , making the entire section incomprehensible: again (and I’d love you to respond to this) we have Sharpton defending himself on CNN, but we don’t link to what he’s defending himself against. It makes no sense. IronDuke 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your answer is that I am wrong and you are right. Great call. If you do feel the need to add to this article do it one thing at a time so we can root out the pov. However, labeling Sharpton as an antisemetic jew killer is not going to fly. One thing at a time or it all comes out. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is actually quite detailed, and you have not responded. If you have problems with what I'm putting in, perhaps you can say specifically, what they are, rather than resorting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I can't read your mind; if you have specific problems, you can let me know. Otherwise, I'll just restore the article to what it had been for years before you came along. IronDuke 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is not really detailed, just long. Well, for starters how about the RNC labeling Sharpton as an antisemtic jew killer. I say that stays out. Sourcing from capitalism.com stays out. You haven't touched on either one of those. If you restore the text I will restore the tags and this edit war will continue. How many edit wars are you involved with right now? Two? Three? Jiffypopmetaltop 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks on me are unpersuasive. If you have something to offer about the article, offer it. Your refusal to say why it is that you object to what you have taken out (rather than vague generalizations) is also unpersuasive. IronDuke 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't want to talk then don't add to the article. Here is one example of the pov writing style "Caribbean-American and African-American residents of the neighborhood then rioted for four consecutive days fueled by rumors (in part driven by Sharpton) that the private ambulance had refused to treat Cato." If you can't see why that violated Wp:BLP then you should stop adding to the article right now and start reconsidering your editing style. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. It's like pulling teeth to get you to say specifically what you don't like, yet I've been a regular Chatty Cathy on this page. In your penultimate post above, you raiesd two concrete objections. The RNC quote? Gone. I took it out. The capmag source? Also gone. I replaced it with another (even though it was written, I think, by an award-winning journalist). The rest I restored, since you refused to say what was wrong with it other than that you didn't like it. I'm happy to talk to you about anything on the page, and happy to reach a middle-ground, if we can. BTW, I believe you have reverted five times in 24 hours (reverting different sections at different times still counts as reverting). You should probably revert yourself. IronDuke 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...no. I have edited the page 5 times, not reverted five times. Middle-ground is a npov writeup of the situation. You keep ignoring whatever I say and then addressing it after the fact. You put unsourced pov into the article. I took it out. You made the mistake. Not me. 70.134.75.181 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing information that was previously in the article counts as a reversion. I am addressing everything you say, as I make clear above. Help me help you--tell me what your specific concerns are. IronDuke 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out unsourced and possibly libelous material out of a bio article does not count as a revert. I am making my concerns known by editing the article. You didnt discuss your changes before putting unsourced material into the article, you can comment on my changes here on the talk page. Please let me know what your concerns are with my edits. Thanks. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on your changes is that you've been taking out wide swaths of sourced, verifiable, relevant information. Libel, BTW, doesn't enter into it. If President Bush said, "User:IronDuke is an idiot," we could report that here, as long as we source it to Bush, not Wikipedia. You cannot simply remove information because some readers might form a negative impression of Sharpton because of it. Sharpton courts controversy; it's the main reason he has a Wikipedia page. If there's any part that lacks balance, please help balance it. Don't remove sourced info. For example, if source Foo says, "Sharpton is Bar," then the thing to do, where possible, is have an equally good source saying, "Sharpton is not Bar." You see what I'm saying? So what I'd like you to do, if you can, is to take each source you don't like and say why it's bad. If the sources aren't bad, then what they say stays in, right? IronDuke 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jiffypopmetaltop, please stop reverting. Change what you don't like. The only thin I see that you don't like is the anti-semitic category. But wholesale deletion of sourced and widely available information is not acceptable. --Tbeatty 06:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check for proper sourcing? No, you didn't. This is a blp article and controversial items must be sourced or immediately removed. Thanks for adding contentious and derogatory non sourced info to the article. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your current edit is much better than the wholesale deletion previously. thanks! --Tbeatty 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]