![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"In 1995, Sharpton led a protest in Harlem against the plans of a black Pentecostal Church, the United House of Prayer, which owned the retail property on 125th Street to ask Fred Harari, the tenant who operated Freddie's Fashion Mart to evict his longtime subtenant, a black record store, The Record Shack."
Can anyone rewrite this it seems (for lack of a better term) too wordy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primetimeking ( talk • contribs).
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)
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
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:
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.
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.
This sounded a little too pro-Sharpton
(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)
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)
There is no reference to Sharpton's accusation that then State Attorney General Robert Abrams also kidnapped and raped Tawana Brawley? Or to Sharpton's referring to Abrams, a jew, as "a Hitler"? Or to Abrams' successful lawsuit against Sharpton? Or to the fact that Sharpton still hides behind his status as a so-called minister to claim he has no personal property that can be dunned to satisfy the damages the court decreed he owes to Abrams? Failure to include any mention of this is what makes Wikipedia such a joke. Also, why isn't the Tawana Brawley incident listed as an instance of Sharpton's "Activism"? Is it because that would be too close to acknowledging that he's just an ambulance-chasing civil rights leader? The previous comment was authored by Wikipedia logon MikeInNewYork
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.
Because of the defamation of character against the police chief in the tawana brawley case, sharpton and three other men were ordered to pay $345,000. THEY HAVE NOT YET PAID $1.
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)
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)
CNN has covered the "white interlopers" incident at least once, and they can hardly be considered to have a right-leaning bias. So any excuse that news reports of this incident only come from right-wing news sources indicated dishonesty or laziness on the part of whomever made such a claim.
It's disappointing that Sharpton's wiki entry has been whitewashed, and this verifiable incident isn't mentioned.
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)
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)
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.
In 1964, an assembly at P.S. 244 in Brooklyn, was held to honor Al Sharpton's becoming a Reverend. Our teachers asked us to stand and applaud as he entered the auditorium. As he left the auditorium he told my sister, "Get out of my way honkey" and told me "move whitey". His racist remarks continued and anti-semitic comments were added when he attended Samuel J. Tilden H.S., Brooklyn. In the 1960's and 1970's this neighborhood in East Flatbush was Italian, Jewish, Irish, African-American, and Hispanic. With such a wonderful mix of ethnicities, you would think that he would appreciate all peoples, but this was not the case. You should not omit the parts about his slurs, because they are real - they were directed at me, my family, and classmates. tchertwenty April 16, 2007
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)
Could someone please clean up all the 'liar' references?
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)
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)
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)
The religious leaders who followed Jesus in Jesus' day never got involved with the worldly affairs of the time. Nor did they apply for offices of government. So I'm wondering what kind of religion Sharpton is in if he doesn't go to church and is so involved and outspoken on so many worldly things of today? Noma12 23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ortcutt 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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
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).
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This sentence is extremely NPOV, and a lot of the rest of the article reads very critically as well. This needs to be fixed.
Resistor 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I already deleted it. Shakam 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know would even think of voting for AS... to me he seems to be the modern day Archie Bunker....
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)
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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution attributable to a reliable source
I think placing a category is very suggestive and are a POV. Wikipedia policy is that we should state the facts and let the reader decide. The facts of sharpton's controversies are appropriately in the controversy section. Muntuwandi 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
that is true but anti-semitism invokes strong emotions, I believe the details should be discussed but placing the category does give an strong impression. Muntuwandi 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is innappropriate for Al to be placed in the category because it is an opinion. By placing such a category it appears to be a subtle attempt to lead readers in a certain direction. We should state what al has said and done and let the reader decide.
Secondly this is a very broad category. If one sees the category on racism there are actually very few individuals mentioned and mostly topics. Yet scandals of racism are in the news every day (eg Bill Bennett, Trent Lott). George Allen is not in the category after the "macaca controversy". Not even civil rights leaders like Reverend al appear in the category of racism. The category of antisemitism should follow the same pattern as the racism category. By placing individuals in these categories is personalizing issues.
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)
Thanks for the response. Let me try to take it point by point.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't there be some unbiased reference to the criticism that Al Sharpton tends to act as if he's the 'go to guy' for anyone who has done anything morally or racially wrong against african american people? This has been paraodied in South Park and is quite obvious in reality - Anytime anyone on the air happens to say something that can be considered racist, Al Sharpton seems to be at the forefront, blowing the issue out of proportion, demanding apologies, calling for firings, etc. I'm not racist myself and I can understand Mr. Sharpton's position but this gets annoying and I'm sure it's one of the major public criticisms of this celebrity.
"Alton H. Maddox, C. Vernon Mason joined Sharpton in support of Brawley. " This is barely a sentence. It should read 'Two lawyers, AHM and CVM, joined Sharpton in support of Brawley.'
I think that the neutrality of this page is very questionable. I didn't read the whole page, but I can tell what the author thinks due to the fact that under a picture of Al, there is the caption "Racist Hypocrite Pig"
I placed the tags on the page for many reasons. Putting al sharpton in the antisemitism category is selective editing to show one particular derogatory pov. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Better sources are needed for the allegations against al sharpton in the market criticism section. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about NYT, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune or something of similar caliber. Material should be cited at the point of entry and not at the end of a only at the end of a paragraph. Jiffypopmetaltop
This is quite incomplete. Why is there nothing here about his role in the murder at Freddie's Fashion Mart? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.39.35 ( talk)
I have added the cites from the actual contemporaneous news accounts because the account as it has appeared here had been inaccurate. That can be somewhat excused as more recent sources for this story tend to blur out that the property owner was a black Church. patsw 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, someone needs to remove the bit about "social justice" from the starting paragraph. That phrase is a highly politically-charged word that equates left-wing economics with "justice." Surely there is a more neutral way to phrase it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.1.5 ( talk)
Militaryace 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Removed Homosexual Slur Militaryace
Don't forget about the Duke lacrosse rape case. He was his same ol'-lyin'-Tawana Brawley-self in that too.
-- Kalmia 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There should be the duke rape case scandal...she was lying, he vehemently accused the white defendants... Shantaclaus 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we should wait til he comments on it...whether or not he apologizes, yeah? Shantaclaus 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're wondering if Al is a hypocrite... Imagine what lengths he would have gone to if the Duke players had been black and the "accuser" had been white. Al Sharpton's racism is clear, and he is not to be trusted. DBQer 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree this ought to be mentioned, if he's demanding apologies from people over mistakes they have made it should be fair for people to demand apologies from him when he makes a mistake. Or, if he still thinks that the Duke players are guilty he should at least acknowledge the issue and explain why he won't apologize. By ignoring the issue it seems that he knows that he should but refuses to do so. Raitchison 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sharpton became the de-facto representative for the Cato family citation needed. During the funeral he referred to "diamond merchants" considered a code word for Hasidic Jews citation needed [10] [11], for shedding "the blood of innocent babies" citation needed leading marchers shouting "No Justice No Peace". Jiffypopmetaltop 06:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What's left to do? If it's all referenced, the tag can be removed. patsw 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
His actual residency is a matter of controversy. The Village Voice ran an article indicating that --while he is active in affairs relating to Brooklyn-- he actually lives in New Jersey. Can anyone shed light on this matter? Dogru144 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"In 1995, Sharpton led a protest in Harlem against the plans of a black Pentecostal Church, the United House of Prayer, which owned the retail property on 125th Street to ask Fred Harari, the tenant who operated Freddie's Fashion Mart to evict his longtime subtenant, a black record store, The Record Shack."
Can anyone rewrite this it seems (for lack of a better term) too wordy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primetimeking ( talk • contribs).
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)
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
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:
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.
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.
This sounded a little too pro-Sharpton
(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)
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)
There is no reference to Sharpton's accusation that then State Attorney General Robert Abrams also kidnapped and raped Tawana Brawley? Or to Sharpton's referring to Abrams, a jew, as "a Hitler"? Or to Abrams' successful lawsuit against Sharpton? Or to the fact that Sharpton still hides behind his status as a so-called minister to claim he has no personal property that can be dunned to satisfy the damages the court decreed he owes to Abrams? Failure to include any mention of this is what makes Wikipedia such a joke. Also, why isn't the Tawana Brawley incident listed as an instance of Sharpton's "Activism"? Is it because that would be too close to acknowledging that he's just an ambulance-chasing civil rights leader? The previous comment was authored by Wikipedia logon MikeInNewYork
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.
Because of the defamation of character against the police chief in the tawana brawley case, sharpton and three other men were ordered to pay $345,000. THEY HAVE NOT YET PAID $1.
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)
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)
CNN has covered the "white interlopers" incident at least once, and they can hardly be considered to have a right-leaning bias. So any excuse that news reports of this incident only come from right-wing news sources indicated dishonesty or laziness on the part of whomever made such a claim.
It's disappointing that Sharpton's wiki entry has been whitewashed, and this verifiable incident isn't mentioned.
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)
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)
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.
In 1964, an assembly at P.S. 244 in Brooklyn, was held to honor Al Sharpton's becoming a Reverend. Our teachers asked us to stand and applaud as he entered the auditorium. As he left the auditorium he told my sister, "Get out of my way honkey" and told me "move whitey". His racist remarks continued and anti-semitic comments were added when he attended Samuel J. Tilden H.S., Brooklyn. In the 1960's and 1970's this neighborhood in East Flatbush was Italian, Jewish, Irish, African-American, and Hispanic. With such a wonderful mix of ethnicities, you would think that he would appreciate all peoples, but this was not the case. You should not omit the parts about his slurs, because they are real - they were directed at me, my family, and classmates. tchertwenty April 16, 2007
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)
Could someone please clean up all the 'liar' references?
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)
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)
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)
The religious leaders who followed Jesus in Jesus' day never got involved with the worldly affairs of the time. Nor did they apply for offices of government. So I'm wondering what kind of religion Sharpton is in if he doesn't go to church and is so involved and outspoken on so many worldly things of today? Noma12 23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ortcutt 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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
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).
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This sentence is extremely NPOV, and a lot of the rest of the article reads very critically as well. This needs to be fixed.
Resistor 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I already deleted it. Shakam 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know would even think of voting for AS... to me he seems to be the modern day Archie Bunker....
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)
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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution attributable to a reliable source
I think placing a category is very suggestive and are a POV. Wikipedia policy is that we should state the facts and let the reader decide. The facts of sharpton's controversies are appropriately in the controversy section. Muntuwandi 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
that is true but anti-semitism invokes strong emotions, I believe the details should be discussed but placing the category does give an strong impression. Muntuwandi 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is innappropriate for Al to be placed in the category because it is an opinion. By placing such a category it appears to be a subtle attempt to lead readers in a certain direction. We should state what al has said and done and let the reader decide.
Secondly this is a very broad category. If one sees the category on racism there are actually very few individuals mentioned and mostly topics. Yet scandals of racism are in the news every day (eg Bill Bennett, Trent Lott). George Allen is not in the category after the "macaca controversy". Not even civil rights leaders like Reverend al appear in the category of racism. The category of antisemitism should follow the same pattern as the racism category. By placing individuals in these categories is personalizing issues.
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)
Thanks for the response. Let me try to take it point by point.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't there be some unbiased reference to the criticism that Al Sharpton tends to act as if he's the 'go to guy' for anyone who has done anything morally or racially wrong against african american people? This has been paraodied in South Park and is quite obvious in reality - Anytime anyone on the air happens to say something that can be considered racist, Al Sharpton seems to be at the forefront, blowing the issue out of proportion, demanding apologies, calling for firings, etc. I'm not racist myself and I can understand Mr. Sharpton's position but this gets annoying and I'm sure it's one of the major public criticisms of this celebrity.
"Alton H. Maddox, C. Vernon Mason joined Sharpton in support of Brawley. " This is barely a sentence. It should read 'Two lawyers, AHM and CVM, joined Sharpton in support of Brawley.'
I think that the neutrality of this page is very questionable. I didn't read the whole page, but I can tell what the author thinks due to the fact that under a picture of Al, there is the caption "Racist Hypocrite Pig"
I placed the tags on the page for many reasons. Putting al sharpton in the antisemitism category is selective editing to show one particular derogatory pov. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Better sources are needed for the allegations against al sharpton in the market criticism section. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about NYT, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune or something of similar caliber. Material should be cited at the point of entry and not at the end of a only at the end of a paragraph. Jiffypopmetaltop
This is quite incomplete. Why is there nothing here about his role in the murder at Freddie's Fashion Mart? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.39.35 ( talk)
I have added the cites from the actual contemporaneous news accounts because the account as it has appeared here had been inaccurate. That can be somewhat excused as more recent sources for this story tend to blur out that the property owner was a black Church. patsw 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, someone needs to remove the bit about "social justice" from the starting paragraph. That phrase is a highly politically-charged word that equates left-wing economics with "justice." Surely there is a more neutral way to phrase it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.1.5 ( talk)
Militaryace 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Removed Homosexual Slur Militaryace
Don't forget about the Duke lacrosse rape case. He was his same ol'-lyin'-Tawana Brawley-self in that too.
-- Kalmia 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There should be the duke rape case scandal...she was lying, he vehemently accused the white defendants... Shantaclaus 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we should wait til he comments on it...whether or not he apologizes, yeah? Shantaclaus 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're wondering if Al is a hypocrite... Imagine what lengths he would have gone to if the Duke players had been black and the "accuser" had been white. Al Sharpton's racism is clear, and he is not to be trusted. DBQer 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree this ought to be mentioned, if he's demanding apologies from people over mistakes they have made it should be fair for people to demand apologies from him when he makes a mistake. Or, if he still thinks that the Duke players are guilty he should at least acknowledge the issue and explain why he won't apologize. By ignoring the issue it seems that he knows that he should but refuses to do so. Raitchison 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sharpton became the de-facto representative for the Cato family citation needed. During the funeral he referred to "diamond merchants" considered a code word for Hasidic Jews citation needed [10] [11], for shedding "the blood of innocent babies" citation needed leading marchers shouting "No Justice No Peace". Jiffypopmetaltop 06:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What's left to do? If it's all referenced, the tag can be removed. patsw 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
His actual residency is a matter of controversy. The Village Voice ran an article indicating that --while he is active in affairs relating to Brooklyn-- he actually lives in New Jersey. Can anyone shed light on this matter? Dogru144 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)