Talk:Maulana Karenga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page moves[edit]

I don't know whether this is editing or vandalism, but a new user keeps moving the page to Maulana Karenga. Maulana is a title, not his name. Also, we usually don't call people Dr. to begin with: no titles at the start, just the name. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sprotect[edit]

If some here are going to sprotect this article, at the very least, they should not do it immediately after doing a non-vandal revert. The last edit reverted and sprotected after was a valid edit which, if you assume good faith, requires dialog about on talk, not just revert on a knee-jerk basis. It's this precise type of reverting, that keeps me as an anon. I have no interest in polluting my log-in name arguing with rude editors. And frankly, some sprotect actions here have been very rude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.130.2040 (talk • contribs) 6:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Convicted criminal[edit]

The first para of the lede of a BLP should summarise the subject’s life, good or bad. Therefore, in addition to the three attributes mentioned, plus his fame as creator of Kwanzaa, should be added ‘convicted criminal'. Not to do so would be wrong. I mean, the crime itself was horrendous. Boscaswell talk 04:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, he was a political prisoner, going along with the documented history of government meddling with Black activists in the '60s and '70s. You'll need to include that in that first para too. Or just let it ride until the third paragraph, where it's properly discussed. In general, "convicted criminal" is awful in a lede; I note through a Google search that it shows up in almost a thousand articles, and each one of those should be reviewed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only the reliably sourced facts matter. The man is in fact a convicted criminal and he was convicted for a heinous crime. As editors we are here to document facts and not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there are reliable sources about the conviction being overturned or it being incorrect, please feel free to add it to the article. Nemov (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's many things, one of which is a convicted criminal. We do not always put "convicted criminal" in the first sentence of convicted criminals. Take a look, for example, at Category:American people convicted of assault. Almost none of them include "convicted criminal" in their lede, unless they happen to be best known for their crimes. You'll find the same is true in most of the "people convicted of" categories. I'm not attempting to defend Karenga -- I think he's a creep, myself -- but we tend to put in ledes what people are best known for, not what bothers us about them. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the reading comprehension fail, I thought this was about the section and not the lede. Nemov (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don’t always mention in the lede that a convicted criminal is a convicted criminal. If the person was convicted of a minor theft, we wouldn’t. Obviously. But the crime in this instance is much more than that. It was heinous, and Karenga spent four years in prison as a result. No minor misdemeanour. Whether it is argued by some that it was the result of political meddling is not the point; Nemov has made that case strongly already. Boscaswell talk 06:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It should be included in the lede Smefs (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this comment as it should be noted that Karenga is a convicted felon for torture and imprisonment. It appears that the information was recently removed by a user named Nemov, possibly under the pretense of left-leaning bias. 2603:9001:6F01:DCEC:AC0C:716:4591:17D (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or more likely because of WP:CONSENSUS that it does not belong in the first sentence. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? If consensus has been reached, then I'd say it would be for inclusion.
I also think it should be in the lede. However I see some edits using the word "felon" rather than "criminal", and I think that's more appropriate language. "Criminal" carries a strong connotation of immorality, "felon" is a bit more neutral. KingAdrock (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The felony conviction is mentioned in the lead in the 2nd paragraph. Nemov (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation over US (e.g. "US")[edit]

I am not sure how quotes are used properly in English, but would not it be right to put "US" in quotes where it stands for "US Organization" to prevent confusion with US (the United States) or a "US [reader thinks a word is missing here]" situtation? Because I just was in that last situation where there is "head of US", and I thought "What, surely he is not the President of the United States"...

45.94.118.47 (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The context makes it quite obvious. Who ever says "Head of US" for the President of the United States, anyway? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Paragraph in question

"Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis' mouth and placed against Miss Davis' face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said. They also were hit on the heads with toasters."

The inclusion of the passage detailing certain allegations against the anti-racism activist Maulana Karenga on is highly questionable and could be seen as unjustified. The tone and tenor of the described events border on sensationalism and could potentially violate guidelines on the undue weight given to controversial or disputed claims. If the allegations lack robust verifiable sources, their presence on the page may contribute to an unbalanced and potentially defamatory portrayal of Karenga. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandria Bucephalous This person was convicted and served time for his heinous crime. The facts aren't in dispute. The section is well sourced and it's a part of the biography that should remain. Nemov (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with the argument that it entire quoted passage is unnecessarily sensational and WP:UNDUE. We already say "stripped naked and beaten with an electrical cord" and "she sat on the other woman's stomach while another man forced water into her mouth through a hose." How much do we need besides "he was convicted of felony assault and false imprisonment"? Two paragraphs? Two sentences? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is fine with me. It offers more detail about what happened and it's well sourced. If he wasn't convicted I'd leave it out, but it seems due to me given the coverage. Nemov (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it mostly serves to express a "bad man" POV. And we really should find a better source for the first sentence than the Dartmouth Review editorial opinion piece, while we're at it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He went to jail for torturing and kidnapping two women. That's not in dispute. How people want to interpret that is beyond my pay grade. The conviction isn't why he's notable and it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph of the lead, but explaining why he went to jail is perfectly fine since it's sourced. Nemov (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Since its sourced" is not at all the point. Lots of things are sourced that don't belong in Wikipedia. The point is the editorial choices we make. I'm only arguing the WP:WEIGHT of having the full LA times quote as well as the material sourced to the Dartmouth Review opinion piece. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this was easy. I just got rid of the first description in favor of the LA Times quote, and got rid of the Dartmouth Review citation in favor of a later LA Times story. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, reads better as well. Thanks Nemov (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maulana_Karenga&oldid=1212406676"