Talk:Amiri Baraka

message: Continuing from the above: In its present form the article lacks neutrality. While it's important to mention the controversies surrounding Baraka, the article should put this into perspective. All the quotes only seem to be there in order to prove that Baraka is anti-semitic while on the other hand there is hardly any information on the nature of his literary works. --a_conz 22:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically if you ever question the United States or Israel you run the risk of being labeled 'dangerous' -Noam Chomsky
____________________________________________
"Lyrical master"? Not even according to the lowest standard. A master poet is someone who has the ability to transcend the limitations of words, who can string them together and reach a greater meaning like "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" or "in Xanadu did Kublai Khan a stately pleasure dome decree."  A lyricist pens cadences that communicate something in an of themselves, in addition the the actual words used - the small percentage of rap music that truly constitutes art is an example.
Here is your supposed "lyrical master" Baraka at work in "Someone Blew Up America":
Who do Tom Ass Clarence Work for
Who doo doo come out the Colon's mouth
Who know what kind of Skeeza is a Condoleeza
Who pay Connelly to be a wooden negro
I've heard better from unruly 8-year olds on school playgrounds.  Or to use his vernacular, "What kind of ca-ca is this Baraka?"
If you think childish, insulting doggerel constitutes lyrical mastery, I suggest you broaden your familiarity with American poetry.  The standard is quite high, and the likelihood of Baraka getting a passing grade in a freshman composition class seems very low.  If you want to promote his writing on political, racial or other grounds unrelated to its merits, fine; just don't pretend it has any worth on its own.
tomsyl 5/2/07 
[edit]
Bibliography
Baraka is using slang, which has been an American literary tradition since Mark Twain.  Somehow, I doubt Tomsyl is as condecending to Huck Finn as he is to Someone Blew up America.  I can't imagine why...  72.78.7.69 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: "stated further that "I do believe, as I stated about England, Germany, France, Russia, that the Israeli government, certainly its security force, SHABAK knew about the attack in advance." Baraka still stands by his claim, even though it has been completely debunked." Please provide references, footnotes , about it being completely debunked. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just asking for references and footnotes. 67.118.118.184 22:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SHABAK

message: I've now tried to write a completely new version of this article - mostly based on the article I've written for German wikipedia and rehashing only very, very few bits from the old article - which, as I've stated above, I consider to be very partisan and derogatory. Some general comments on the new article:
* So far I haven't listed the sources I've used (might incorporate that later). The most important are:
**William J. Harris's Introduction to the LeRoi Jones / Amiri Baraka Reader, New York, 1991
**The Wordsworth Companion to English Literature, Ware (GB), 1994
**The Autobiography of LeRoi Jones/Amiri Baraka, Chicago, 1984
**Numerous writings by Amiri Baraka
**The links referred to in the article
Desiderata:
*This is only a start. So far the article's mostly biographic and bibliographic, i.e. literary criticism is missing (differing opinions, references to sources)
*Most of Baraka's worked can be viewed on his homepage. I don't think anything would be wrong with some examples here and there - only I'm afraid his works are still subject to copyright (excerpts, like in the old article, that are polemical and purely quoted to make a political point are definitely not very helpful).
*Baraka, of course, was and remains a controversial figure. Therefore perhaps a special section, sorting out the main controversies and giving a few quotes pro and con, might be helpful.
*A special section on his music criticism (and his influence) would be very desirable.
*In the old article there was a whole section on the recent death of his daughter. I consider that to be purely nosey, unenyclopedic yellow press prattle. But maybe some people would like to differ?
*Finally: Though I'm sort of bilingual criticism/edits concerning language are much appreciated. --Albrecht_Conz 02:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article looks good now. A criticism section would be nice, as Baraka has said some less than diplomatic things in his career. TDC 02:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Since I'm a complete noob, I wanted to offer this suggestion for discussion before editing a controversial page. I think it's a misleading simplification to say that Baraka "had to give up" his position as Laureate. On July 1, 2003, the New Jersey legislature completely eliminated the office, since there was no existing impeachment policy. Does this unusual circumstance warrant mention?  BoredomMan 9:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I gotta say I'm not too happy about Conz 's rewrite.
*I think an article about a poet is much more insightful with quotes from his poetry.
*I liked my section headings more than simple year-ranges (meaningful headings give meaning, years are just numbers)
*The section I had added (and spent some time researching/editing/attributing) regarding his daughter was completely obliterated without discussion.  I don't think that's in the spirit of Wikipedian consensus.  I thought that section really helped balance out an otherwise negatively-slanting article, as well as give usefully relevant information about Baraka (and his family) in recent years.
- Eric 01:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: After some consideration I'm reverting back to Albrecht Conz's version.  While it is important to discuss Baraka's anti-semitism, it's also important that this article not be obsessed with it or so have so much space devoted to proving it to the reader. Gamaliel 18:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Because of the nature of his claims in "Somebody Blew Up America", it is very hard to claim that he is "an ex-anti-Semite"-- the charges of a vast secretive and mallicous conspiracy involving both New York Jews and the Israeli government (with tenuous evidence) is a classic anti-Semitic rhetoric-- now this may be very different than the sort of Antisemitism espoused by the Nation of Islam, but it is still Antisemitism.  By analogy, David Duke once proudly identified as a white-supremacist, but now he calls himself a white-seperatist, either way, David Duke is still a racist.  Baraka's break with the Nation of Islam, symbolizes that he has rejected a type of antisemitism that is grounded in that particular sect's theology and mythology, however, he now embraces a secular, Arab-nationalist, conspiracy-theory, type of antisemitism.IanThal 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: I ask, perhaps there should be an apology offered to the author of this article: for Baraka's statements, claims and for the grief these may have caused he or she.  For it is quite evident.  This article is nearly devoid of scholarship and dripping with misguided sarcasm, negates its intended purpose of libelling the name of a great and American poet.  The incorrect usage of grammar and offhand phrasing are typical.  The attacks at Baraka's personage are but trivial.  Indeed, I ask, is it of relevance to what purports to be a encyclical entry this scathing bias?  Is it of relevance this infatuation of white America with black art, in all its vain disdain and utter misinterpretation?  To whomever agreed it was justifiable this article be published, I offer you an apology: for the ignorance of a nation and any interruption it may be caused.   Andthetranemoves 08:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Relevance 

message: "he allegedly answered one white woman student's question on how whites could help the situation with this response..."
Needs a cite. Or possibly should be removed. -- 201.51.166.124 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged answer" needs a cite 

message: "in 2006, controversial right-wing author and lecturer David Horowitz ranked Baraka 27th worst in his book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America." 27th worst what exactly? Paul B 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified the language of the sentence, although it seems clear from the book title that it refers to his role as professor or scholar. --chemica 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the great problem is that according to the book's article, Horowitz did not rank the professors. The list was created in alphabetical order by the institution with which the professor is associated. --chemica 01:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: worst what?

message: The Biography section gives inconsistent dates for Baraka's name change, presents dates in non-chronological order, etc. Further, the article refers to Baraka alternatively as Jones or Baraka, confusion ensues. Lobstersandbox 22:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Inconsistencies/Style Revision Needed

message: I agree with all the complaints about this article. It is slanderous and disgusting and clearly focuses on the few instances of Amiri Baraka's work that some people consider unacceptable. Regardless that these complaints are obviously rooted in a misunderstanding of poetry, of black nationalism, of the social and political histories of black people and radicals in particular their complaints do deserve a place because some people consider them notable, but for god's sake let's also mention the rest of what he did.
"Baraka stands with Wheatley, Douglass, Dunbar, Hughes, Hurston, Wright and Ellison as one of the eight figures... who have significantly affected the course of African-American literary culture." - Arnold Rampersad
The life of a man is always an evolution, let us change the phrasing of this article to frame his life properly: his commitment to growth and change, to freedom, justice and pride, rather than the standing article which accuses him of commitment to anti-Semitism and hate. 
And who are these supposed left-wing radicals that are suspect of his commitment to Marxism? Who said that they get to decide what Marxism means? This at the very least needs clarification. But right now I'm going to remove it.
***You said: "these complaints [about Baraka's work] are obviously rooted in a misunderstanding of poetry, of black nationalism, of the social and political histories of black people and radicals in particular . . . "  What misunderstanding of poetry" are you referring to, and what are your own qualifications as a judge of what is good, bad or indifferent?
No degree in literature is required to conclude that the poem cited repeatedly in the entry,  "Someone Blew Up America", is on its face of extremely low quality.  All one has to do is read it.  You appear to be arguing that despite this, the poem is somehow being taken out of context, and that it magically will become a work of art once the other factors you deem relevant are considered.  This reeks of an approach to literary criticism that itself is hugely subjective, yet aims to disqualify the negative views of others because "they just don't get it." The truth is exactly the opposite:  great literature transcends cultural and temporal boundaries, and stands on its own, without excuses from the authors' apologists or sycophants.
Here's a simple thought experiment:  The New Yorker publishes anonymously a short poem by Baraka, with it's typical potty language and anti-Semitism intact.  After a torrent of protests, the magazine reveals that the poem is by Baraka, whom a Stanford professor considers a genius. What has changed with regard to the poem?
What's next, saying that people who think Baraka's poetry stinks are racist?
Tomsyl 5/14/07
64.65.92.138 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need contribution discussing what this man actually did! 

message: I heard an allegation that a LeRoi or LeRoy Jones wrote: “Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mother’s throats."  Is this the same person?  Does anyone know if he really wrote or said that?  If so, I was wondering if it should be mentioned.
Boris B 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of allegations etc. going around about all kinds of things. In case you actually heard that it would be helpful if you'd not just come up with an allegation but with a source for it. --Albrecht Conz 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "In case you actually heard that it would be helpful if you'd not just come up with an allegation but with a source for it."  I asked a very reasonable question.  Google gives 615 hits for the search ""rape the white girls" Baraka" (including the inner quotation marks) and 1070 for ""rape the white girls" Jones."  Browsing those links the answer to my first question is obvious; I tend to use Wikipedia as my first resort but I suppose Google will have to do.  The answer to my second question, should this be mentioned, remains open. Boris B 05:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify quote? 

message: The following sentence is inaccurate: "In 2002, the state of New Jersey made him poet laureate—a position he had to give up in 2003, surrounding controversy having to do with his 9/11 poem Somebody Blew Up America [2]." What happenened was the then then Governer McGreevy tried to remove Baraka from the post, only to discover that there was no legal way to do so. So he then abolished the NJ Poet Laureate title.
Baraka never relinquished the post - in fact he refused to do so.
::Baraka was forced to give up the post of poet laureate of New Jersey by the only means available to the governor to do so -- by eliminating the post. Bus stop 16:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not forced to give it up, it was removed from him - there is a whale of difference. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baraka never gave up Laureate post 

message: * Someone recently added :Category:American liberals to Amiri Baraka article; I think this is completely wrong and I removed it, but other editors should weigh in. --lquilter 14:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There is nothing particularly liberal about Baraka's politics or ideology.  That he hates the adminstration of George W. Bush does not make him a liberal.IanThal 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: categorization as "liberal"

message: I'll edit, over the next few days, adding original publication dates and ISBN numbers. RahadyanS 15:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography needs fixing

message: As this article currently stands, a casual reader would have no idea that Baraka has inspired so much controversy. It would not be unfair to mention this, giving a brief rundown of the most important examples.
Mistermind 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: Yesterday I've reverted most of this article to an earlier version. I do not understand why previously many established facts about the career of Baraka have been removed from this page. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for rants and raves. Of course Amiri Baraka is - and has been - a controversial figure. We certainly do need a section on the controversies surrounding his works and political positions. But this has to be balanced on the one hand against the artistic impact of his works as such - which is manifold - and on the other hand there are numerous political controversies. So it's no good to just take up contemporary stuff, hearsay from talk radio, unsubstantiated present day political polemics. In a section on controversies Barakas positions on Marxism, black nationalism and feminism in the 1960s and 1970s would have to have at least the same space as more recent controversies concerning what he said about 9/11. - All knowledgeable contributions are welcome, i.e. people who have read his works and works on him - write on. Ranters and ravers, please go to talk radio. --Albrecht Conz 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to improve & not to improve this article 

message: Hi all. I just reverted the above article due to the insertion of text copied from this page. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the subject at all, so this is the best I can do. Can someone look it over and tidy it up? Please don't re-insert the copyvio text or the article will end up being deleted - Alison ☺ 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alison. As far as I can see the copyright violation is the other way round, i.e, someone copied information from a previous version of this article (which I wrote myself some time ago). Unfortunatly - and I do not understand why - the history of this article only goes back to Dec. 2006, i.e. I used a version of my text I'd saved locally in order to do the revert. --Albrecht Conz 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was deleted in December 2006 for copyright violation. If you say the original sources were yours, translated from the German, then maybe mention this on the talk page and point to the German wiki version. We can't really take chances on copyright stuff. - Alison ☺ 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I've mentioned it. And the link to the German version is readily available on the article page anyway ... I've only saved the article on my computer at the time because I wrote it. Once the older versions in the history have been deleted it is of course rather difficult to prove who copied what. Still I do not understand why this could have been deleted without anyone notifying me. What is going on? I mean, why should I write something only to have it deleted because somebody copied it and then somebody else came up with a claim that it was actually copied the other way round - and no way to prove it one way or the other ... because somebody deleted the history without notifiying me, the author. - What is going on??? - I do not have the time to deal with such rubbish. You seem to be here quite frequently. Please move this matter to the relevant meta discussion for resolution. --Albrecht Conz 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations 

message: Much of the discussion here has been debating whether or not Baraka is anti-Semetic but the truth of the matter is not what needs to be in Wikipedia right now.
(my own argument that it isn't anti-Semetic to criticize the Israeli government or Zionism but when you criticism the Israeli people (given that Israel is an ethnic nation-state based on Jewish ethnicity and given that this definition usually is assumed to exclude Israeli Arabs), it is pretty much anti-Semetic, but that's irrelevant because I'm non-notable)
As an encyclopedic source Wikipedia ought to contain cited sources talking about Baraka's accomplishments and in a format more readable than chronological. It should also address cited references to the controversy as well as cited, prominent defenses of Baraka.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia must be encyclopedia, even if that isn't necessarily right 

message: I am neither pro- nor anti-Baraka, but this page reads like a half-baked college essay.  The first rule of Wikipedia (and any English class at any level) is that everything needs to be verifiable and/or properly cited.  All passages followed by "(citation needed)" need to be removed or cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.239.137 (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passages without Citation 

message: Any mention of his very public clashes with Phillip Roth. I say this as neither a sworn enemy, nor a fan of either guy. But their exchanges are considered pretty significant by literary historians, and by anyone looking at the history of African American/Jewish relations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.30.204 (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What's missing here is

message: The example of the deaths of Allende and Neruda as being one of Baraka's "errors of fact" is probably a rather bad example, especially in comparison with much more
questionable statements. Pablo Neruda was indeed ill with prostate cancer, and it would have been inevitable that he die a couple of years down the road. (Prostate
cancer is one of the slowest cancers around.) However, it is fairly universally understood that the immediate cause of his death was the shock that the coup - and
the subsequent shooting of half a thousand of his friends and fellow militants in a week - produced in him. 
I would presume Baraka is making the point here that dying by being emotionally crushed is not very different from dying by gunshot, or something of the sort. Feketekave (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Errors of fact" 

message: Sometimes articles forget to include the most basic facts, which results in certain sentences making no sense. The article implies that he converted to Nation of Islam, probably from Christianity, and changed his name. But the article never explicitly states this. Someone on the talk page mentioned that he later denounced the Nation of Islam, and again there is no mention in the article. I'm not familiar with this man at all, but someone who is familiar really needs to include this stuff. Klopek007 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  conversion 

message: There are at least three published pro-Cuban resolutions Baraka signed in 1961 (if the web is correct). I have used the first I found, from the Havanna Times.org blog of Margaret Randall, entry "Death of one Era, Birth of Another". Sept 17, 2009 - source: M. Randall's book: To Change the World. My Years in Cuba (2009). The Evergreen Review printed a resolution signed by Jones, DiPrima, Ferlinghetti, Mailer, Ginsberg and Paul Goodman. The "Afro-American" printed a resolution signed by Clarke, Cruse, Gibson, Mayfield, Robert Williams (all on the July trip) and by Ossie Davis and W.E.B. DuBois. --Radh (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1961 pro-Cuban resolution 

message: The Wikipedia criteria for a Lede is to summarize the content of the article. The article is NOT about one person's opinion of Baraka. But about Baraka. The issue under debate fails balance and is not big enough to merit inclusion in someone's lead. Take it to the body. I mean 1/2 his lead is occupied by Critics! Do you need more? Where is the balance? --Inayity (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Worry about the article and do not give commentary on non-essential issues. Who is this someone? The lead, as I have already mentioned is NEGATIVE enough. The body of the article is a good enough place to express all views with some balance. Already 1/2 the lead is occupied with negative remarks. which fail NPOV. So as for making a Saint of the man, you seem to be intent on making a Devil of the man. I repeat How many more negative opinions do you need in the lede? He was not Hitler. So please do not mis-represent the issue as hedging negativity. It is creating some balance per NPOV. --Inayity (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * O.K., if you've seen my contributions to this article over the last few months, you'll see that I've added information on both sides (positive and negative). The article is not the best quality and like a lot on Wikipedia could be significantly improve. But this comment belongs appropriately in the lede as it was written. If you have a positive critique from a respected literary scholar or critic (I think Cornel West wrote on some of Baraka's merits...have to find that), the two would balance out. Add that positive material by all means, but do not remove a salient, appropriate, summary just because you think it's negative. However, I'm not intending to make the man a Devil--I actually like the guy despite some of his hate-filled poetry and prose. But I'm not going to agree to the removal good material just because you think it's "too negative" and haven't rectified it by providing something good to say about the man. And seriously, per Godwin's Law--don't mention Hitler...it just means you've lost your argument and resort to unnecessarily loaded and incendiary rhetoric.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * And before you scream NPOV, you have three sources in the lede that point out the comparison to Baldwin and positive reviews. It's disingenuous to ignore that. The lede isn't "half negative".--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well what do you think now. I have restore the ref without restoring the long way it used to insult him. IN all fairness just compare the two versions. dif--Inayity (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like a whitewashing the legacy of a hateful man by an editor seeking to vindicate his hero.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that with a 1/2 heart. Because I think objectively no one can seriously say that is what I did. B/c all the same content is there. But I have removed all those little naughty words which violate NPOV. Like if the entire world had a problem with his poem. He was angry and inequity not necessarily hateful. --Inayity (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Yeah that is a little strong, hence why I restored the ref.--Inayity (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing lede summary RE: criticism of Baraka's work and misogyny, racism, homophobia and violence

message: There seems to be no mention in the text of his son Ras, currently a candidate for Newark mayor, although several other children are mentioned.  Surely that belongs somewhere in the chronology. Jeepien (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * Details of Ras's candidacy belong on the Ras Baraka article. Aside from a brief (that is, the briefest) mention of his son being politically active in Newark, city council and mayoral candidate, it should not go into detail (per WP:SUMMARY). One sentence at most should suffice.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

text: *  - I added a two sentence brief in the chronology right after the discussion of his daughter's murder.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: I found a source that says he was arrested in 1979 for involvement in a civil rights protest. Previously on the page there was a statment that he was arrested in 1979 for a domestic indecent with his wife. I don't know if these are two takes on the same arrest or if these are separate arrests. I will try and find out, but noting the question here in the meantime.Wowaconia (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1979 Arrest(s)? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Amiri Baraka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626212832/https://www.pen.org/page.php/prmID/929 to http://www.pen.org/page.php/prmID/929
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929214214/http://www.amiribaraka.com/blew.html to http://www.amiribaraka.com/blew.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amiri Baraka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504101347/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/baraka.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/baraka.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Amiri Baraka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141123181237/http://www.amiribaraka.com/ to http://www.amiribaraka.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161105180041/http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/7e829725-1f15-450c-b640-aaf0c0342443%7C_0.html to http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/7e829725-1f15-450c-b640-aaf0c0342443%7C_0.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125224700/http://pulse-berlin.com/indexa2ea.html?id=139 to http://www.pulse-berlin.com/indexa2ea.html?id=139
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141123181237/http://www.amiribaraka.com/ to http://www.amiribaraka.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regardless of the overall content of this page, is it not uncustomary to maintain the "Controversies" page above "Works" page? I've never seen such a thing on a page for an artist. 2601:702:8100:1360:D937:84C9:D60F:8161 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All these "controversies" should be subcategories of "Legacy", not bulletpointed prominently up top. I get the "primary writer" of this page has an axe to grind, but if they're confident in their beliefs, they wouldn't need to stack the deck. 2601:702:8100:1360:D937:84C9:D60F:8161 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency