Talk:Jesse Lee Peterson

message: "His views are strong towards anti-affirmative action" might better read as "His views against affirmative action are strong" or something like that.
This guy seems pretty interesting for a demagogue and I'd like to see more in-article quotes and other stuff. Pretty high-profile being linked to from Jesse Jackson's page.
71.116.217.242 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: * To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:
# Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer. 
# The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given. 
# Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given. 
# Reasons should be provided for each change. 
* In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, these four items are shown as an example: 
 Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
:"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."
----
 Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
:"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."
----
 Using as the reference:
:
----
 Reason for change being made:
:"The previously given diameter was incorrect."
*Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the missing components from your request. Thank you!
Regards,  Spintendo  13:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 26-OCT-2020

message: THis talk page is for debate, so stop reverting peoples work. THis man is hostile towards Islam and has an Anti-Islamic Sentiment in his politics. See the cat for the full definition. Do not try to whitewash racism on Wiki as if he had said this about Judaism it wouldnt even be up for debate.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the talk on the category where you have been refuted in your attempts to change consensus on the misuse of the category. Kyaa the Catlord 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: U r one editor, The cat is valid for people who have a anti-Islamic voice. Why would you have a problem with this, you are the one blocking it everytime. Just like there is an anti-semitic one why not have an anti-Islamic one to identify bigotry against Islam. U point to some one else pushing an agenda but in all fairness equally you are pushing an agenda. If wiki had no such cats then i wouldnt have an issue, critic of Islam is weak, and if you can justify that then what is the issue. Discuss and stop reverting because you have failed to explain why some religions can have this cat and not others, esp in our current climate of Islamphobia.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cooler heads did prevail. You're a bit late. Kyaa the Catlord 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, if you say so!  -Robotam 16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreschi, Hipocrite and Dual Freq came in and took care of the BLP issues. GeorgeBP was finally blocked for the sockpuppetry/3rr he was engaged in elsewhere and peace once again was restored in Townsville USA. Yesterday. Kyaa the Catlord 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding. And re: the Jan 28th Peterson statement?-Robotam 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the editor who seeks the inclusion of the content's responsibility to source it, not the one who brings up the BLP issue. I gave the user the benefit of the doubt and asked kindly, coolly that the sources be found. I know now that I should have just removed it and walked away. I won't make that mistake again. I'm not the bad guy, I simply brought light to the problem. Kyaa the Catlord 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just an FYI, there was no edit warring done over the removal of the January 28th incident. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not remove the anti-Islam sentiment

message: The sources for the January 28th incident do not lead anywhere. This is a sourcing concern. Please find verifiable sources or this section will be removed per WP:BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 08:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Unless a source is found, do not include this "information." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded, though I may have removed this info already. This article is a BLP nightmare and needs proper sourcing. I have tried to remove the most potentially libellous information. Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: I repeat: until the article is sufficiently sourced, as is required per WP:ATT,  :Category:Anti-Islam sentiment should not appear in this article. There are insufficient reliable sources provided for such an assertion, which could be potentially libelous and fall foul of our policy WP:BLP. Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting again, and can we please discuss this. The category itself contains this statement to the people to whom it applies: ""hostility toward Islam or prejudice against Muslims as a religious or political group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." As such, the inclusion of this category in the article is not on per WP:BLP. Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The category again 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: See the sentence about his program on God's Learning Channel?  It doesn't air there anymore.  I should know; I'm one of the cameramen there.  You might consider putting that text in the past tense, yes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi238 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date 

message: Can someone please explain why his comments about "Muslim Extremists" disliking America are included among the controversial? If it must be included, then perhaps it could be clarified as to what made the comment controversial. Mr. Peterson comments were not about "Islam". Is that not a common belief and understanding about Islamic Extremist Groups?  EyePhoenix (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the actual controversial part, which someone removed from the paragraph, is when Peterson called Islam "an evil religion." You are correct that the context is lacking, and I will re-insert the quote to address that. Good catch.-RoBoTamice 14:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Southern Poverty Law Center is actually considered a reliable source per WP:SPLC, but it may be too partisan for its use in this BLP. Second, the Atlantic article does not explicitly state that Peterson said the above - which could be libelous. P,TO 19104  (talk) (contribs)  20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Opinion

message: Please stop using references from Left Wing (Media Matters) blog sites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.25.123 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias source

message: This article says nothing about his educational background. A man with such radical opinions should have some qualifications to stand on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EducateDaSoul (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational background

message: I've changed "some of" to "the majority of" in the sentence: 
On September 21, 2005 Peterson penned a column for WorldNetDaily, in which he suggested that some of the African-American people stranded in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina were "welfare-pampered," "lazy" and "immoral." 
I don't think that's POV-- it's something he says pretty unequivocally in his article on the topic. The original quote is: 
When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. 
That's really the crux of his argument; there's no sense in watering it down for the controversy section.  --Fullobeans (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricane Katrina

message: Shouldn't this be included in the article somewhere? It's quite obvious he racist towards his own people. On October 20, 2008 - He said in Bill Cunningham's show that ""Most black people today are racist" and condemning blacks for voting for Obama. He even called the black Civil Right's activist back in the 60's "troublemakers". I think that says it all about him - A Self-Hating black man. Gouryella (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indee... It's completely unnecessary to include all kind of moronic comments into the article. Seen this happening with lobbyless dead people more than enough. But it's also wasteful to do this a living person that could reply. 105.0.0.249 (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Hating African American? 

message: The section is just another "Controversy" section (which Wikipedia frowns upon) with a different name, isn't it? 67.233.244.232 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Statements" 

message: Every sentence in this article, hagiographic or propagandistic, which is not sourced, should be removed, per blp policy. controversial figures dont get free space, and neither do their detractors.(mercurywoodrose)99.101.137.96 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  done. Chirota (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced information

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jesse Lee Peterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070616075448/http://chooseblackamerica.com:80/about.html to http://chooseblackamerica.com/about.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.judicialwatch.org/5704.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recently, there has been a dispute involving the inclusion of Right Wing Watch and various youtube videos as sources for Peterson's views. I do not believe that RWW constitutes a reliable source for information about a WP:BLP and youtube videos are almost never considered acceptable sources for BLPs. The things that Peterson has said that have garnered significant, third-party coverage should be included, those things that haven't been covered should not be included. Notifying  who has been adding the disputed sources. SWL36 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of unreliable sources to substantiate views 

message: Information to be added or removed: REMOVE "Spouse(s)" field from Infobox
Explanation of issue: Subject commonly states he never married, but was "engaged twice." I've never heard of any person claim to be his spouse. I believe current "Spouse(s)" field is a result of vandalism.
References supporting change: Most recent statements, "The Jesse Lee Peterson Show," Monday, October 5, 2020 (time stamp 30:41) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0sz0-nbi1I&t=30m41s
COI: I work with this subject.  
JamesAntonHake (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In future for egregious issues such as this, you may get a more prompt response at WP:BLPN (but please do not use that page to request routine updates). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: There is a lot of problems here. The large quantity of context-free info added into he article is not necessarily helping Declaring your COI is good, but it's not enough to make these edits neutral. COI editors, especially WP:PAID ones, should in most cases propose changes on this talk page instead of making them directly. Template:Request edit is available for this purpose. Making promotional edits yourself is not acceptable, and you are not impartial enough to judge whether these edits are promotional.
As for sources, again, many problems. Too many youtube clips. I also see press releases (which may predate the COI activity, but are still inappropriate). There's a Daily Wire link, which fails WP:RSP. IMDB should also not be cited in BLP articles, per WP:CITEIMDB. Perhaps more, but that's a start. It is not enough for a fact to be supported by an obscure unreliable or WP:PRIMARY source. We need reliable, independent sources to explain to readers why these things are encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI and bad sources tags 

message: I initially removed the "so far-right" claim which is used to support a few claims he's far-right (e.g. in the infobox). It comes from a Yahoo interview (here):
 
I read this initially as "I am so far [on the] right that I can hardly see myself [from before]" rather than as him identifying as a far-right figure, which is a label I believe he would not readily associate himself with. I am not familiar with his work, so I will leave this here and see if others have any comments bearing in mind this is a WP:BLP. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Far right" 

message: Jesse Lee Petersen is not a white supremacist 2601:1C0:CA00:5380:B9C3:5EDA:9FB5:85D1 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop making up lies about black people 

message: "AFPAC has been described as a white nationalist political action committee"
Specify by whom this statement as been made. My tightness (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022 

message: A considerable amount of information is inaccurate and the entire page should be rewritten in an unbiased manner 134.228.64.208 (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased/ Politically Motivated Sources 

message: Remove the pay wall sources in the intro suggesting he is a white supremacist. 47.40.215.1 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: If you'd like to provide alternate sources that aren't paywalled, we can swap them in. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023