Talk:Maulana Karenga/Archive 1

This 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.

Archive 1

Question

...has been conveniently buried.

To whom is it convenient? The wording seems biased. Would removal of the word conveniently detract show less bias?

I think so. "surprisingly underreported" would seem to be fairly justified, though. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Front page mag link

This keeps being inserted then removed again. I've reinserted it, because it does seem to be a legitimate publication, unlike some of the previous ones. Slim 04:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was confusing it with the http://www.martinlutherking.org/kwanzaa.html link from 'Stromfront', I guess because 'front' is in both names. Sorry about that once again. 172 04:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a little controvery over the details of his conviction. Are the facts of the case stated in the Frontpage link to be considered trustworthy?

They should be contexualized and counterbalanced with his side of the story in the article. 172 06:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There was a bunch of really racist stuff about Karenga in the Kwanzaa article until recently. A lot of it came from Stormfront and bogus websites pretending to belong to the Martin Luther King foundation and others. The frontpagemag seemed to be the most respectable source detailing the conviction. I've looked around for more neutral material, but so far haven't found anything, which is odd, because you'd think it would have been more widely reported, but then I suppose with it being so long ago, online references will be scarce. I'll keep looking. Slim 06:40, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Please note that Bondinfo is a right-wing, anti-Muslim site with a vested interest in discrediting Kwanzaa, and the lone negative article on Chickenbones seems to be a similar hatchet job. Neither can be trusted as a reliable source. I find it highly unlikely any college would offer tenure to a professor convicted of such crimes, never mind a State university: such a situation would be worth an entry in and of itself. I would request that solid, impartial corroborative documentation be provided before the convictions are re-introduced into the entry.

Anti-Muslim? Kwanzaa has nothing to do with Muslim beliefs. Karenga oppossed Muslim, Christian, & Judaim declaring them myths. I have sourced it from his books.

Documentation has been provided if you check the last two links included in this article.--64.30.11.107 16:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Marxist

"It was at this time that he became a Marxist." exactly how does one become a Marxist? Kingturtle 07:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's easy: by being exposed to the philosophy and adopting its principles. Karenga has done this.

Whitewashed

It seems this article is very whitewashed. Ron Karenga has had a very troubled past, and some in Wikipedia have tried their best to cleanse and "politically correct", as in correcting an error, to make him a sort of an immaculate civil rights leader.

please make changes to the article as you see fit :) Kingturtle 17:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

State prison

Ron Karenga was a prisoner at a California State Prison named "California Men's Colony", in San Luis Obispo, California in the 1970's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.171.42 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2004 (UTC)

Verification?

Yesterday I tried to do some cleanup on this article. At first I just wanted to get rid of the reference to the non-existing University of California Long Beach (where the heck did that come from?). I found that trying to find the facts on Dr. Karenga is hard, especially since there seems to be either glowing biographies or hatchet jobs, and no middle ground. I found after looking at all of them, that I couldn't trust the "facts" in any of the online sources that I checked, and so the Wikipedia article suffers becuase of the unreliability of the available info. For one thing, I question the B.A. from LA City College, since it is a community college that usually only grants A.A. degrees. I found the year originally listed in the Wikipedia article for when Dr. Karenga became the chairman of the Black Studies dept. at CSULB (1979), which I am guessing probably came from the Front Page article, was off by ten years from the date I found on the CSULB website (1989). Although I generally hate to see the disputed tag on a Wikipedia article, this one may need it. gK ¿? 07:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I find it particularly unlikely that he has two doctorates. However, a problem in the past with this article, and the associated page about Kwanzaa, is that they've been the subject of racist attacks. Therefore, any attempt to make this article more factual has to be done carefully and in good faith. As you say, the problem with online searches is that they're either glowing or they're related to white supremacist websites. Slim 07:45, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

It's not just the racist websites. Both the Frontpage Mag and Dartmouth Review websites are from what I would call the reactionary end of the conservative spectrum and do nothing to hide their anti-affirmative-action bias, for one example.

The info on the two doctorates came from the "official" Kwanzaa website. USIU in San Diego is not a major university like USC, but it's not a diploma mill either (my uncle was the head of the Art dept. there for awhile after doing the same at Chapman Univ. in Orange, Calif.). It might be worth trying to contact CSULB to see if their press dept. has a biography or academic CV for Dr. Karenga. gK ¿? 10:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unclear section

I've done a copy edit, in the course of which I removed the following, because it's not clear what's meant by "recent COINTELPRO scholarship," and it has no source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Black Panthers at the time accused Karenga of working with the FBI to destroy them. Recent COINTELPRO scholarship suggests there was a concerted government effort to create dissension between the two organizations, and that there were double agents within both.

Two PhDs and naming questions

One of the best ways to figure out whether someone has a PhD legitimately is to do a keyword search for the dissertation at UMI (the place where all PhD dissertations in America are published. Unfortunately this usually requires that the individual searching be attached to a university him/herself. In my case because I was interested in Ancient philosophy, I found Karenga's second doctoral dissertation on Ma'atian ethics. He legitimately has two PhDs.

On naming. I think it would be interesting to document exactly when he changed his name. When he was born he wasn't BORN as Maulana Karenga, he was BORN as "Ron Everett." The entry should read as such...then it should document when the name change occurred. This is information I don't have, but I suspect it happens around the time that US starts. --Lester Spence 6 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

As Lester Spence mentioned above, there are databases which contain a listing of all legitimate PhD dissertations in America. Access to these databases is by subscription only, but I have have access to one of them. I looked up Karenga's two doctorates, and they do appear in the database. The article has been edited to provide more details on his doctorates.

That fact that he has these degrees is irrefutable. I cannot comment on quality of his graduate school work or on the intellectual profundity of his dissertations, but he did do them, and accredited universities granted him doctorates for them.

As for why one might earn a second Ph.D., there are a few reasons. If the first degree was earned at school with a very poor or questionable academic reputation, one might want a Ph.D. from an internationally recognized school. (United States International University vs. the University of Southern California might be such an example). Also, some individuals earn doctorates in different disciplines. Usually this is done because the fields are very different, but possibly complientary under certain circumstances (e.g. history and chemistry for history of science, or political science and educuation for education policy). It is very rare, but it is done occasionally. Ordinarily, an individual with a Ph.D. in one field will, at most, earn a master's degree in the second field to receive specialized knowledge and to earn new/additional credentials. Poldy Bloom 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Credible sources are being used only to be deleted by confused people absorbed by "political correctness". I call this vandalism, because the events happened and are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.247.181 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

It is a form of vandalism, and it's especially disturbing that one of wiki's most active editors would engage in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc6809e (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Time in prison

I deleted the Front Page article because a)In referencing the LA Times article, the link should be directly to that article, not another source citing the original article. And b)The article is clearly not neutral. I've left in the quote from the LA Times article because I think it's important. Can someone link the article? BTChicago 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only way to access online the LA Times article quoted in the FrontPage article is to go to the LA Times archives page and purchase it. The article discussing Deborah Jones' testimony is found in the May 14, 1971 edition on pg B8, there is no author given, but the title of the piece is "Karenga Jury Hears Victim Tell of Torture". The quote used in the FrontPage article is found in this piece, and is correct. Also, the article on Karenga's sentencing is found in the Sept 18, 1971 LA Times on page B5. The article is written by Ron Einstoss and is titled "Karenga Sentenced to 1-to-10 Years for Torturing Woman". Unfortunately, I can not link to these articles, or publish them on the web without the permission of the LA Times. Hopes this helps some. User: metalsmith 30 December 2005

Should we mention he was an FBI stooge too? :) -- Jbamb 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I tried to combine the best parts of the last couple edits. While I acknowledge that my version of the intro missed important details, the changes I made to the trial info removed what i consider pov, or at the very least content of unencyclopedic (however it's spelled) qualtity. TheKaplan 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Criminal record in intro

Could people please stop removing the fact that he is a convicted felon from the opening? A conviction for assault and unlawful imprisonment involving torture is a huge part of this man's reputation and, more importantly, who he is. Removal is POV by omission. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny to say that it's not important enough for the opening, as it is supposedly not what he is known for, first of all because WP is supposed to record facts, not popular opinion, and second of all because to a huge segment of the population (the ones who are not his cheerleaders), the fact that he is the violent leader of a violent group is what he is know for. His status as a felon is an important part of the opening. Thank you. TheKaplan 08:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has removed it: an entire sentence in the lead is devoted to it. What we don't need are two iterations near each other from the Department of Redundancy Department. Jonathunder 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's in the lead, but there's no need for it to be in the inital description. We don't write of someone that: "John Doe is a professor of philosophy, best-selling novelist, and shoplifter." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree but I'm not going to change it again because it's not worth a fight. However in the hope of perhaps convinving those who think otherwise, I shall adress the two previous points: It's inclusion is not, as Jonathunder so elquently suggests, a function of the Department of Redundancy Department, since its inclusion would follow the pattern of the other listed qualities. For example, he is described as a Marxist scholar, and then later in the intro there is elaboration on his academic career. Similarly, he should be described as a felon, and then later there are the further details of his criminal activities. As for SlimVirgin's argument, frankly it's just silly to compare a conviction for felony torture/assault to shoplifting. But looking beyond that, you would indeed say that "John Doe is a professor of philosophy, best-selling novelist, and shoplifter," if shoplifitng was a major part of what makes Mr. Doe notable. TheKaplan 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to correct myself: He is not, as I claimed above, "described as a Marxist scholar, and then later in the intro there is elaboration on his academic career." That example should read, "he is described as an author, and then later in the intro there is elaboration on his writings." TheKaplan 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Note how although I stated earlier that I wasn't planning on making the change and including his status as a felon in the intro because it's not worth fighting about, such a statement was predicated on the belief that there could be a productive discussion here, with the aim of reaching consensus. But if no-one raises objections to the new points I brought up, then making the change would be the responsible action on my part. TheKaplan 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely inappropriate to call him a convicted felon in the opening paragraph. It should be mentioned secondary to the creation of Kwanza, which is what he is best known for. -Maximusveritas 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems entirely appropriate to mention it in the first paragraph if he is well known for it, it just shouldn't be mentioned the way it is now - i.e. maybe the next sentence or something. Right now it is laugh-out-loud funny, esp. considering the marxist mention comes after it :). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 07:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I meant to say "opening sentence". It's in the second paragraph now. I would move it right after the Kwanza remark, but that would mess up the chronological order that's currently in place. - Maximusveritas 07:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for months, anon IPs (I suspect the same person) trying to add "convicted felon" to the first sentence. That he served time for assault is in the intro. It's inappropriate to put it in the first sentence because it's not what he's notable for. It strikes me as an attempt to poison the well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kaplan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.76.188 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I don't agree with the sprotection at all, but I guess I'll do it properly and tag it. Can people please refrain from using rollback and protection in edit wars? Thank you. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 07:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RN. I see this as vandalism, not a content dispute. I haven't edited it, other than to revert the "convicted felon" well poisoning, since June 2005. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you are not the arbiter of what's content and what's vandalism. And, you are being arrogant, plain and simple, if you think that others here should just sit back and watch as you unilaterally accrete such a role to yourself. That said, I am convinced you are not being intellectually honest on this and here's why: In your editing zeal to delete "convicted felon", you leave utterly asinine tripe in the article. For example, the article currently has this sentence in it: "In 1971, Karenga was convicted of felony assault on two women who he believed were spying on US." There is absolutely NO reason the wiki should be including the 2nd half of the sentence, "...who he believed were spying on US.". The reasons this should be stricken are a) he was convicted of the crime and from that, we can conclude that fact finders already found his justifications for his deed wanting, b) there is no reliable source that cofirms this assertion about what Karenga supposedly believed and c) including that snippet serves no purpose but to excuse Karenga for a violent misogynistic act. No man, except if driven by perverse hatred, would do what Karenga did to those women. Shame on you Slim for overlooking this point, while downplaying the other. Karenga may be partially reformed now, but at the time he violently attacked those women, he was a vile, despicable man. To soft-sell this is disgusting. You need to check your conscience regarding your edits here. Perhaps talking more with the other editors of this article might resolve this issue. That said, I've looked at your edit history on other pages and you seem reasonable in the main. Therefore, please accept my apologies for this stern rebuke. I do not intend it as a blanket condemnation of you as an editor. Regards, Merecat 05:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comment below. You're way out of line with this comment. Wikipedia policy and guidelines point us in the correct direction when we write about living people. Style guides and WP:BLP both suggest the best way to write an opening paragraph for a biography. WP:BLP is widely supported by the WP community as well as Jimbo Wales. It was written specificly to advise editors on ways to accurately present information while causing the least harm to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to spread your opinion about the character of another living person. Editors are encouraged to look for malicious content and remove it. FloNight ^talk 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I am not advocating that "convicted felon" go in. Rather, I am rebuking Slim (she is very experienced and ought to know better) for chasing that out, but leaving "...who he believed were spying on US." in. Frankly, if the 1/2 sentence I am referring to was removed, I'd be inclined to say that the intro is just about right. I take issue with Slim's assertion that those she is reverting here regarding "felon" are vandals. That's not how I see it and that's not how I read the above dialogs. It's plain and simply rude to say 'I edit for content, but you are a vandal'. No one with Slim's experience should ever advance that notion. It's that notion that I find arrogant and I think I made it clear that I am not condemning Slim on a blanket basis. Even so, thanks for your feedback. Merecat 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, I'm not defending the way the rest of the article is written. There's a lot about it I would change if I were writing it, and I'm not happy about some of the referencing. As I said above, my only involvement with this for months (apart from a couple of tweaks) has been to revert the "convicted felon" from the first sentence. I'd have no problem with removing "who he believed were spying on US." If you look at the section that deals with the assault, you'll see there's no attempt to whitewash what happened. My aim is neither to protect nor condemn him, but simply to make sure that the article isn't malicious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We are a wiki. Make the changes. Explain on talk. Honestly, your rebuke of SV and attack of Karenga made me overlook everything else you wrote. That is WP:CIVIL 101. Hard to reach consensus when you focus on the editor instead of the content. What other changes need to be made to this article? --FloNight ^talk 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Think about what you are saying. It's illogical on it's face, as you are doing precisely what you assert is wrong with my comments. Also, if you read my comments literally, there is no condemnation of Karenga as he is today, but rather as he was when he brutalized those women. No moral equivocation is needed here. It was a brutal, vicious act, period. To suggest otherwise is, well... how can I say this without offending you?.... misguided. And as for why I don't remove the offending text, I am waiting to se if my reasoning persuades one such as you to remove it. Frankly, if my words are so unwelcome that tripe such as that 1/2 sentence is left in by the others, then I'll probably move on to other pages where my co-editors are more receptive to dialog and suggestion. Merecat 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing discussion

I've tidied the intro a little, and I deleted the part about him thinking they were spies. See what you think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know if anyone editing this article has read the Los Angeles Times article. Or are we relying on the The Dartmouth Review's summary? FloNight ^talk 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The bio profile with the PBS interview [1], says that Dr. Karenga is widely recognized as the father of Afrocentrism. Father of usually warrants a mention in intro. --FloNight ^talk 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have trepidations about this "father" stuff. My research about Kwanzaa is that when it was initiated, it was intended by Ron Karenga to be a "keep us apart from whitey" celebration. Now, though it does appear that Karenga himself has mellowed somewhat over the years, I am still personally leery of any so-called "holiday" that has as its flag colors black (not for whites), red (spilling of blood) and green (radical environmentalism). Suffice it to say, I am not persuaded that Karenga has forsaken his racist views and I am not convinced that he has sworn off violence as a means to an end. Those who want to hold Karenga up as a "father" of something, must watch that he's not called the father of only nice-sounding things, for if that's done, a hagiography results and this would violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -- Merecat 19:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, you do know that Karenga committed not just felony assault, but torture (and kidnapping) yes? [2]. And, there are those who would call Karenga the father of modern race-baiting (and other harsh things [3]). Personally, I think we should keep this article as dry and scholarly-like as possible. An abbreviated matter-of-fact article would avoid most disputes about his personal history. Merecat 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Father of Afrocentrism is a pretty neutral way of summing up his involvement in the Black Power movement. Some would see it as a negative term and other postive, I think. It depends on if you have strong feelings either way about the issue. --FloNight ^talk 19:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A more accurate term would be "black-separatism". To my thinking, the founding of kwanzaa, etc. are the mirror image of various "white-separatist" activities. I do not support and will not agree to sugar-coating any activities that drive a wedge between people based on skin color or race. It is highly unlikely that Father of Afrocentrism could be worked into this article on any basis without being hagiographic. I am opposed to that term, sourced to LA Times or not; it's too poofy-sounding and too PC. Merecat 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It was PBS profile of him on their website accompanying a story they did about him. I can see your point to some extent. We shouldn't be PC. But if the majority of the press about him is PC there is not alot we can do about it. We are suppose to reflect the worldview about him as found in real world publications. If Father of Afrocentrism is just used once in that bio profile, I say skip it. If it is used widely than we need to consider it. --FloNight ^talk 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "if the majority of the press about him is PC there is not alot we can do about it"; I disagree in the strongest possible terms. For example, if all the press say that Global Warming is caused only by mankind, that does not make it so. The science about earth temperatures make clear that ocean currents and solar flares also have great impact on earth temperature. Likewise, if 25 newspapers all say "Karenga is well loved" and only 2 or 3 say "he was convicted for torture" does not mean that we should have a 25 to 3 ratio of data in the article. Suffice it to say, the end result of the article, if too hagiographic or too harsh, must be tempered. Verfiable sources are required to cite facts, but the biases of the reporting parties should not be allowed to color our views as to what facts enter nor should they be otherwise determinative. We have a duty to present a factual history. Well loved or not, a person who has done a dispicable deed must not be allowed to escape that fact. I say that torturing women is despicable and must be reported. You may disagree and the word "despicable" need not enter the article, but frankly I am appalled that the word "torture" is not in the article. Karenga burned those women on the face with a hot soldering iron. If that's not torture, I don't know what is. Merecat 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, it is in the article as I think it should be. In 1971 Karenga, Louis Smith, and Luz Maria Tamayo were convicted of felony assault and false imprisonment for assaulting and torturing two women from the United Slaves, Deborah Jones & Gail Davis. [5] FloNight ^talk 00:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, you're a new editor with 110 edits to the encyclopedia and 68 to article talk pages, 26 of which have been to this page, which suggests a degree of interest in describing Karenga negatively that is perhaps inappropriate. We don't publish the "truth" about people. We publish what other reliable publications have published. If all or most reliable published sources say global warming is caused by mankind, we publish the same thing, right or wrong. SeeWP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. And the word "torture" is indeed in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The logic of how you interpret the rules puzzles me. The admonition to publish what "people believe" rather than the "truth" does not go so far as to require that you publish falsehoods and/or downplay troubling aspects of a complex man's personal history. It is a verifiable truth that Karenga committed a vile act and was sent to prison for it. It'a also a verifiable truth that Karenga's past reflects a eclectic mix of traits and actions. If discussing this offends you to the point that you have to criticize me for talking about it on this page, then I won't talk to you about it. I have no interest in arguing with you. Whether you are willing to accept this or not, the truth is that PC people in the press would like to gloss over Karenga's troubling past. Likewise, some editors here would like to do that as well. You are welcome to join them if you choose. I, on the other hand, will not. Edit here as you please, I won't trouble this page with anymore dialog. Thanks for your feedback. Merecat 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Content queries

Outstanding content queries

Father of afrocentrism. (check to see if commonly used)

Los Angeles Times (get original article re: crime info)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I removed about 3 paragraphs from the article that were just copied and pasted directly from the Dartmouth article. That's a clear copyvio. If you want to re-insert some of the material, please rewrite it in your own words. - Maximusveritas 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC) And now I had to remove 2 paragraphs that were copied and pasted directly from the "Official Kwanzaa Web Site" [4]. Another clear copyvio. However, I do think it might be a good idea to include some of that information (such as his current job) if it's still up-to-date. - Maximusveritas 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Criminals

The Category:Criminals is a main category with specific subcategories. Adding a perosn to the main category is not correct. More approriate is to categorize to the specific category if crime a person committed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro wording

Ron Karenga (born July 14, 1941), also known as Ron Everett, is an African-American author and Marxist political activist. Karenga is best known as the founder of Kwanzaa, a week-long celebration first observed in California, December 26, 1966 to January 1, 1967. Karenga is sometimes referred to by the title of "Maulana", which means "master teacher" in Swahili.

In 1965, Karenga created the United Slaves, a Black nationalist group. In 1971, Karenga was convicted of felony assault on two women who he believed were spying on US. After his release from prison in 1975, Karenga continued his academic studies. Karenga was chairman of the black studies department at California State University, Long Beach from 1989 to 2002. [1] In 1984, he co-hosted a conference that gave rise to the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations, and in 1995, he sat on the organizing committee and authored the mission statement of the Million Man March. He is the director of the Kawaida Institute for Pan African Studies, [2] and the author of several books, including his Introduction to Black Studies, a comprehensive black-studies textbook, now in its third edition.

The current, protected version with the above wording is much better than the wording reverted to multiple times in the past 6 hours. It concisely states the reason for his notability in a logical and encyclopedic manner. regards, FloNight ^talk 08:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the WP:BLP guideline means we have to be particularly careful not to write bios in a way that appears to be malicious, which sticking "convicted felon" in the first sentence certainly does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

SV, I am sincerely interested in hearing how basic recitation of the facts is malicious in this case. Doesn't your position on this issue itself contain a POV value judgement that his status as a criminal is not as important as his status as a scholar? TheKaplan 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The information is given in the article already--quite prominently, in fact. SV linked a guideline which addresses why we don't put it in the lead sentence as well. Let's move on. Jonathunder 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching this article with a 10-foot pole, but I would like to make the comment that if his felony convictions are not considered notable enough to warrant inclusion in the initial paragraph, why is his being "sometimes referred to as Maulana" notable enough to make it into the introduction? Also, according to the Maulana article, it means "our lord" or "our master," and is Arabic, not Swahili. So you have an inconsistency to work out whether you consider the title a super-notable aspect of his character or not. --Tjstrf 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Link problem in the second paragraph

I very much doubt that Ron Karenga created the United States - he seems a little young. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.187.84 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Poor footnote format

There are no proper footnotes, you cannot have weblinks as footnotes this is not the correct standard, all of these should be footnotes so the ref can be seen. I have actually added one so you can copy that format and make sure proper footnotes are used! c clean up tag.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

Why do you insist on calling the organization by the wrong name? It was NEVER "United Slaves." Even if you think that MK was/is a charlaton, liar, racist, and misogynist, his organization is simply "US", as explained below. Don't be a coward and just delete this. Either justify your insistence on calling the organization by a name it has never used or use its proper name.

A quote from below: As a side note, according to Scott Brown, author of Fighting for US: Maulana Karenga, the US Organization, and Black Cultural Nationalism , the "US" doesn't stand for United Slaves. From the introduction of the book: The repeated usage of the term “united slaves,” as a reference for the US Organization, is perhaps the best example of the lasting consequences of the US/Panther conflict.1 The name “US” actually stands for Black people: the pronoun “US” as opposed to “them,” the White oppressors. As an article in the journal Black Dialogue in 1966 stated, “US means exactly that—all of US (black folks).”2 During the late 1960s, some of US’s rivals and opponents used the term “united slaves” to ridicule the group. This slur has been given, unwittingly, scholarly credence in several works on the Black Power movement, in spite of the fact that there are no documents or recorded speeches in which Karenga or any US members refer to their organization as such. link: [5](scroll to bottom of page for intro of book) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.73.240 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

Move to Maulana Karenga. Actual name used by this individual. We don't put Tony Bennett under Anthony Benedetto. Badagnani (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Karenga

What does "Karenga" mean, and did he get this name from somewhere or invent it? Also, when did he take this name? Badagnani (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Users please add any new comments at the BOTTOM of the page and sign your comments with four tildas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisapollison (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Would the anons please stop adding to the intro that he has a criminal record. It's a clear attempt to poison the well and isn't what he is known for. The intro should summarize why he is notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - his felony record and his radical Marxism are part and parcel of Karenga's persona and the version as shown here [5] is perfectly valid. These are very notable facts and must be given some prominence 10.195.85.230 03:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro should be as short as possible, with mention of what he is known for by most people. His felony conviction is given prominence in the 2nd paragraph. His Marxist ideology could also be mentioned in the 2nd paragraph if need be. Facts 09:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a convicted felon is not part of someone's ongoing day-to-day identity the way activist and author are. It's bad English as well as POV. We don't write "John Doe is a professor of philosophy, writer, drunk driver, and has a huge nose." It's already inappropriate in my view to have the felony in the second paragraph, but Facts has written that as a compromise, so please accept it and stop revert warring to your own version. If it continues I'll seek page protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim are you making bully threats? There are several editors here who disagree with you and "facts". The version you/he keep reverting away from is more accurate and is plently enough NPOV. Stop demanding your own way. It's precisely the kind of threats you are making, which leads several editors to edit controversal articles as anons only. And FYI: "Karenga"'s criminal past and Marxism are major parts of his persona. Sweeping that aside with vague justifications is POV. 70.84.56.165 22:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else concerned about this issue? 66.98.130.204 21:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The criminal past is hardly being hidden in a corner. It's in the second paragraph. What is not acceptable is to hang it round his neck in the first sentence, because it isn't what he is known for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim your overweaning focus on removing felon from the intro is misplaced. Your refusal to accept that Karenga's criminal background is a very notable aspect of his persona leads me to beleive you have an agenda here. Please stop it. 192.168.185.76 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note, the above anon user is hiding his identity [6]. The users actual identity is User:67.15.76.185. -- Stbalbach 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalbach is monitoring my edits. He must have nothing better to do. Also, when I leave a comment for him on his talk page, he deletes it. 67.15.76.185 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I have a hard time understanding the strange Idea of near worship of the man whose single claim to fame should be as the Benidict Arnold of the black struggle in America.Dozens of former FBI personell have come forward to verify that Ron was on the payrole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldpanther (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Simba Wachanga

Can anyone add info about the Simba Wachanga? The Simba Wachanga is widely reported to be the youth movement of the US organization. Also, is there a relationship/connection between the Simba Wachanga and the Simba Rebels of the Congo in Africa during the 60s and 70s? 68.252.246.167 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My God I don't know who you people are. But many of us are still alive who were there. Ron Karenga was an Criminal maybe unwitting stooge of the FBI at best and at worse s sadistic,murdering traitor. He deserves none of this attention. Spend your time doing something else.Oldpanther (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Master's thesis

Everett's master's degree thesis cannot be found in the UCLA Library's online catalog. Is there a reason for this? Badagnani (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

'cause he didn't write one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.130.129 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dartmouth Review

I was able to open the Dartmouth Review links. Perhaps I missed the one that wasn't working? Slim 03:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot access the dartreview references. can anyone else? my system says the site is dead. Kingturtle 03:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can access them. Slim 03:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I cannot access that Dartmouth Review article, as the link is quite dead. You have to imagine my total confusion reading an article about the guy who invented Kwanzaa and then reading that he tortured two women who refused to take off their clothes. Is there no other source that talks about this? You would think that that's a pretty important piece of information to know about a guy. And he did this five or so years before earning his first PhD?? My head's a spinnin'. No wonder Amiri Baraka bashes this guy in his "Confessions of a Former Anti-Semite"... Enderandpeter (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the web.archive.org mirror of the link in the Further Information section is still alive, though it takes a while to load. Enderandpeter (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dartmouth Review This is the link and it works fine for me.

Please consider the newest edit closely, I tried to construct it to suit all issues and I don't believe I left anything out. Everything is sourced - one source is from one of Karenga's books.

We should all discuss which areas seem indifferent before re-editing this page again.

Thank you.

Very impressively done. i look forward to reading it closely. Kingturtle 04:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

J0eg0d has made some good edits. The article's a lot better now. The only problem we continue to have is with references. Any claim likely to be challenged is going to need a reference, and if we say, for example, that he wrote 12 books, we should list them under References or a "Books by Karenga" section. J0eg0d, can you provide references for some of these new edits? Also, I continue to find it unlikely that he has two PhD's, unless one or both were honorary. It's not unheard of for people to have two genuine PhDs, but it's very unusual, in part because it's pointless. Slim 04:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

One is a Bachelor's- the next a Master's - the last is a PHD. His 12 books? I guess I could simply source his books to Amazon.com, I just felt that would be advertising instead of sourcing material. He has some books from the University of Sankore Press, but his site doesn't list them all.

Karenga was also Chairman of the President Clinton's Task Force on multicultural education and diversity at California State University. But I couldn't find a source that specifies it. I don't know if he is still in charge of this or not.

I know what a PhD is. My concern is that I have a problem believing he has two. Yes, it would be helpful to list the books and the ISBN numbers, which is the normal thing we do at Wikipedia, so people can check them out if they want to. These should be list in the References section, or in a new section called Bibliography or Books by Ron Karenga, as you choose. Slim 04:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I sourced Karenga's books through this link. Also - a Master's in Political Science and a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy) in Political Science are not the same thing.

The article says: "Karenga went on to earn a Ph.D. in political science from United States International University, a liberal education college with campuses in San Diego, Nairobi and Mexico City, and another Ph.D. in social ethics from USC." That's two PhDs: almost unheard of. Slim 05:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, sorry - Well... Ross on "Friends" had to Ph.Ds. ^_^

I think the page reads smoothly now - I don't feel there is a need to detail the criminal allegations as it detracts from the article. If some still feels it is necessary information, then perhaps they should create a seperate article focusing on the conviction itself.

J0eg0d. can you provide some references for the edits you made today, please. They will have to be referenced or future editors will remove them, so if you want them to stay, it's best to find sources. Slim 05:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

What exactly needs to be sourced that can't be found in the references? Do I source that where he was born? Do I source his alias? - Do I source every sentence? Redundant sourcing takes away fom the article, that's why I focused on sourcing the controversial topics.

Some of the information you added today needs to be sourced. Readers shouldn't have to hunt for it. If you make an edit saying X happened, then put a link, like this [7] after the sentence or paragraph. Not all claims have to be referenced, of course. It's a question of commonsense, but any claim that is challenged by another editor does have to be referenced, or that editor has the right to remove it. What should be do about the two PhDs? Does anyone know where that comes from? Slim 05:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Everything in the article which commonly causes questions is sourced. Just because you have never heard of people gaining two Ph.Ds, I have to source to Karenga's website to validate this? Go to his bio and read the first paragraph; "Dr. Karenga holds two Ph.D.'s; his first in political science with focus on the theory and practice of nationalism (United States International University) and his second in social ethics with a focus on the classical African ethics of ancient Egypt (University of Southern California)". Sourcing such information isn't necessary, because it's undeniable.

Sourcing any information that is challenged is necessary. Very few things are undeniable. Three points that it would be helpful to see sources for are:

1) "Karenga was born on a poultry farm in Maryland, the fourteenth child of a Baptist minister."

2) "In 1969 , the US and the Black Panthers disagreed over who should head the new Afro-American Studies Center at UCLA. According to a Los Angeles Times article, Karenga and his adherents backed one candidate, the Panthers another. The Black Student Union set up a coalition to try and bring peace between the groups, which ended when US members, George P. & Larry Joseph Stiner, shot dead two members of the Black Panthers, John Jerome Huggins and Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter. The killing was dismissed by UCLA chancellor Charles E. Young as an unrelated incident."

3) "In 1979 , upon the referral of his long-time friend Sam Yorty , Karenga took over as head of the Black Studies Department at California State University in Long Beach."

I've added the Kwanzaa official website as the source of the PhD claim. Slim 06:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

People getting two PhD's rare, but not completely unheard of, so I have no problem with that. One of the problems I have is with the BA from Los Angeles Community College, since it is a community college and usually only grants A.A. degrees. I looked at their website and couldn't find anything about them granting BA degrees. I think that it is much more likely that he got an AA from LACC, and then both a BA and MA from UCLA, but that is just idle speculation. Also, are you sure about the 1979 date for becoming chairman of the Black Studies dept at CSULB? See [8] " Karenga has served as chairman of the black studies department at Cal State Long Beach since 1989." And here is info on him retiring from the chairmanship position in 2002 [9]. Also: The last reference also talks about the President’s Task Force on Multicultural Education and Campus Diversity, which I think is referring to CSULB President Robert Maxson (and not Pres. Clinton). Finally, where did you find the mention about ex-LA mayor Sam Yorty, because I have a very hard time imagining the two being good friends. gK ¿? 07:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: the two PhDs, please see below. Poldy Bloom 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles Community College has been fixed - it was Los Angeles CITY College. I changed the information on CSULB, you were right I had the date wrong. Karenga's association with Sam Yorty began in the 60's - he went on to meet Ronald Reagan & several other politicians, and he eventually worked with the Clinton administration. It isn't very questionable considering Karenga was a leading political speaker. I used "long-time friend" incorrectly, but he did have an excellent relationship with Yorty. His job with CSULB has been under a great deal of debate, because he was an ex-convict, and theory detailed that political influences granted him the oppurtunity. I removed them due to it being a source from discussions. I have found that the location where Karenga was born is different under many other articles, yet Los Angeles court documents show Ron Everett (real name) born where I stated. It is now sourced. Many people use theory instead of religion when referring to his Kawaida belief. I use "religion" as quoted from Karenga's own books, it is based in "African spirituality & religions". The reference concerning the Presidential Task Force was deleted before I sourced it and basically I'm just frustrated with this type of re-editing - somebody else do it - just try to be unbiased about the conspiracies surrounding Karenga's connection to the FBI.

Fixed "Watt's" to "Watts"

This article is much improved. Thank you for doing that. I'll finish the Books by section when I have a spare 10 minutes. Slim 23:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times' news articles detailing the accusations & convictions

Copy and paste material removed per WP:COPYVIO Copies of these articles are available for viewing at the Los Angeles Times' website.^[1] Republic of Texas (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Republic of Texas. Thank you for thinking of expanding this article. I have removed ^your addition to this page and the article because it was a copyright violation. You copy and pasted sentences and paragraphs from this copyrighted source, which is not allowed per our policies of WP:COPYVIO. Please do not restore the information without thoroughly rewriting the text. I also consider that the level of detail is likely a violation of WP:UNDUE in a biography of living people. If you reinsert the material, please summarize it in a few sentences. --Slp1 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that some people think that if you rewrite in your own words, its called 'original research' and they bitch & complain, but when you use exactly the same words, they also bitch & complain. However, as a test, I shall rewrite this portion and repost it, and then see how long it takes before some more of you people come along and try to delete it. I can see from the discussion page here that for years people have been trying to eliminate this knowledge from the public and this article. The excuses being lack of 'reputable' sources and the like. But now when someone comes along and uses said sources, you people come up with another excuse on why the information should be deleted. To be honest, I think the 'level of detail' for this Kwanza crap is also a violation of our policies, but whatever. At least by having both pieces of information the article reflects a more balanced picture of this guy's life and then neither side will be entirely happy. Republic of Texas (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

People will only call it original research if you make claims that are not in the texts you cite. And people will only call it copyright violation, if you use the words of others. By all means rewrite and summarize this text. If you do so fairly in 2-3 sentences (which is likely all it needs) then I will likely support its inclusion. "Fairly" means that you will need to include that he denied the charges, which I note was not included in the last version. --Slp1 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What difference does putting in his denial make? Does it make him any less guilty or culpable? Republic of Texas (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes it of neutral point of view. Being found guilty does not make you necessarily guilty or culpable, as the cases of Kirk Bloodsworth and Guy Paul Morin show. --Slp1 (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that just after I typed it. But this is not a case of 'he said/she said'. In reading the LA Times articles from the 1970s I learned that there were multiple witnesses and, in fact, the guy admitted doing it (he claimed they were trying to poison him with magic crystals or some BS). So while it is true that innocent people have been found guilty, this did not seem the case to me. But its no big deal to add that point. Republic of Texas (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotes like this are not copyright violations. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dissertation and this article is about the person not the court case, so I think the quotes and detail do not belong here. That is just my opinion, and Slp1's opinion is also just an opinion. There are several processes for seeking consensus of opinion on Wikipedia. One process is Wikipedia:Requests for comment, requesting comment about this article here on this talk page. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi 64., Thanks for your comment. In fact the problematic additions were for the most part not direct quotes. They were multiple descriptive sentences lifted whole from a copyrighted source, and as such were violations of copyvio and plagiarism. By all means start a request for comment if you wish, but honestly, I've been around here a long time and am very confident about what the outcome will be. I'm glad to see you agree about the detail issue, though. --Slp1 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow... it is very pertinent information that the founder of Kwanzaa is a convicted felon. The Darthmouth Review and Gazette articles provide ample detail about his conviction and subsequent jail time. I cannot find evidence of Karenga admitting to the crime, as Republic of Texas claims, but he's right that this information is mysteriously missing from many biographies about him. But I guess the omission is not too mysterious as the Gazette article makes it pretty clear why this is so (as well as common sense). I will definitely include this information in the article in a neutral way. Just give me a minute here... Enderandpeter (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In the LA Times artile from 1971 in which his sentencing hearing and psych exam is discussed he admits to doing this, but his reasons are crazy (claiming poisoning by magic crystals) Republic of Texas (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the name of the section that talks about Karenga and US's run-ins with the FBI to one that describes the legal controversies they have encountered. That way there can be one section about this general topic. I mentioned his felony conviction citing the Dartmouth and Gazette articles. I will look for this 1971 LA Times article. It will take me a few days to be able to look, because the only database close to me where I could look for it is in a college that is closed at 5pm and my transportation is very limited at the moment. If anyone else can search for it, that would be helpful. If you have any questions or issues about what I changed, please let me know here or at my talk page. Enderandpeter (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ginadumas, please check your talk page. Enderandpeter (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How are the cited sources "malicious"? All of them portray the facts in a disinterested, that is unbiased, way. The Gazette (Colorado Springs) is a very respected newspaper. I live in Colorado Springs, and the only complaint I've heard is that people wish it would lean a little more to the right, which is understandable given the political environment of this city. The LA Times is even more respected. The Dartmouth Review article is a little more critical of him, but nothing they say is controversial in the sense of outlandish or unverifiable. Everything it discusses can be fact-checked in numerous other places. Clearly what I wrote is accurate information. Would you prefer to also include the case files for his conviction as a source? Would you propose rewording it? What do you suggest? Please cease voicing your opinion merely in the form of erasing what I wrote. Enderandpeter (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

References

^ http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=Karenga&type=historic&sortby=RELEVANCE&datetype=0&frommonth=12&fromday=04&fromyear=1881&tomonth=12&today=31&toyear=1984&By=&Title=&restrict=articles&x=72&y=15

Article being politically sanitized

I find no reference to his conviction at all, and it should be in the first paragraph. Given the extensive conversation regarding the fact that he is a convicted felon, and the absence of any mention of that conviction, I would like to ask that the article be protected from whatever biased editing is taking place.

````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Link 5 is broken

It makes reference to claims very much in need of verification but the reference hyperlink does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brauden (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Karenga, Us and Legal Controversy

Has anybody noticed that several of the references listed link back to this same Wikipedia? Most notibly the section "Karenga, Us and Legal Controversy" Which generally accused State and federal agencies of false imprisonment relating to a gun battle in LA. Over all this section is very sloppy, and deserves to be cleaned up a bit. Does anybody have any suggestions? Paragoalie (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not noticed any references in (the now named) Karenga, Us and Legal Controversy section that link back to this page. All of the ones in that section, since at least last month, have been linking to either books or articles mentioned at the bottom. And so, I guess technically, they link back to the main page... But they aren't citing this site as a source, if that's what you thought.

Kudos to user Slp1 for so valiantly fending off vandals. Once again, heat is flaring up over Karenga's felony. So let's all get a few things absolutely clear. This article is very explicit (now more than earlier, courtesy of the user Nemov) about his trial and conviction. There is no need to claim that his embarrassing, but pertinent, history is not mentioned here, unless someone removes it. There is no doubt about this event in his life. It has been fact-checked all up and down the Mississippi. If he'd talk about this incident, it would clear alot up, but oh well.

Now, I predict that some people will object to how the last paragraph of this section is worded. And so we should expect it to be rewritten and focus on finding a happy medium. At this point, we can all agree (I hope) that sufficient details of that horrid incident are summarized in the article as it currently stands. However, the name of this section should be "...Legal Controversy" because it talks about issues that US ran into as well as Karenga. It is not a section about Karenga, the Us Organization, and Karenga's felony, but rather about Karenga and US's run-ins with the law. If you strongly feel otherwise, please express why so, here. Thanks for cooperating, everyone. Enderandpeter (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that this section could be improved on the whole. I guess the whole article, when it comes down to it, could use a little tidying up. I will certainly contribute to it's improvement and I know there will be many spirited and productive debates to come. Enderandpeter (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that being convicted and serving time for torturing people isn't a "legal controversy." The first three paragraphs could be considered controversial, but it is misleading when it comes to his conviction. His conviction should be its own category. Karenga was in a radical-race based group in the 60's and then served time for a heinous crime. After he got out of jail he created a race-based holiday. Some may find this is a feel good story, but there's a pattern here. If his crime was a simple youthful discretion I could understand minimizing it, but that's simply not the case. Nemov (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no minimizing of his crime here. For organization's sake, surely you see good reason to have one section contain information about legal issues related to Karenga and his group. All of them that are of a significant nature (namely the FBI's preoccupation with them, the UCLA shootout and Karenga's torture trial and conviction) are plainly described in this article, and consolidated in one place for easy reference.

I chose the term "legal controversy" because it neutrally describes the nature of events like the three I mentioned. People can debate about which one is more heinous. Ultimately, this article is very clear about the controversy surrounding Karenga's status as an advocate of the Kawaida philosophy that he encouraged others to preserve in a holiday. There's no need to focus in greater detail on his felony history at this point, because you provided ample detail. I would not be opposed to adding more information about the other events, however. There is a very insightful overview of the tensions that led to US fighting the Panthers at UCLA in an essay by Floyd W. Hayes III and Judson L. Jeffries called "Us Does Not Stand for United Slaves!" in a collection of essays called Black Power in the Belly of the Beast. On the whole, I'm sure we agree this section needs improvement. Enderandpeter (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current edit has enough information about his crime and conviction. I disagree wholeheartedly that "legal controversy" is a neutral take on a felony conviction. The definition of controversy is: "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." While the other areas are indeed controversial, Karenga's felony conviction is not under dispute, debate, contention, and it certainly not a matter of opinion. The headline "Karenga, Us, Legal Controversy, and Felony Conviction" would be a neutral statement of facts. 66.209.33.10 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the shootout at UCLA and the FBI's focus on US and Karenga were not events that are held in dispute or debate in the sense that someone is suggesting they did not occur. A controversial event is not solely an event where the existence of the acts or issues are held under question. The nature of Karenga and US's controversy, in this case, deals with other kinds of uncertainty and debate, such as Karenga's viability as a leader or US's stature as a progress-driven group, for example.

Renaming the section to "Karenga, Us, Legal Controversy, and Felony Conviction" would actually be less neutral. It is clear that you are more upset by questioning whether or not Karenga engaged in the torture he was tried and convicted of than by questioning whether or not George and Larry Stiner killed John Jerome Huggins and Alprentice Carter at UCLA. Both events are rife with all kinds of controversy, particularly legal. These events also share that category with the FBI's preoccupation with Karenga, US, and the Black Panthers. Karenga's felony may as well have been the most offensive of these events, but bias is expressed when that one event is singled out. In fact, you could certainly argue that members of US engaging in a homicide was the more egregious offense. If there is a better term than "Legal Controversy" that you believe will categorize all these occurrences, (that is, place all of these well-documented occurrences under a single title that neutrally describes their collective nature) then I'm certainly open to suggestions on that part.

Now, there may still be uncertainty surrounding some of these acts, but there is indeed plenty of documentation pertaining to them. If anyone is curious about the legal issues that Karenga and his group have been associated with, this section can discuss all of them. If anyone questions whether or not these events really did occur, they can dive into the sources mentioned. I'll be sure to cite that essay I mentioned above as well because it is based on superb research. Again, all of these events reside in the category of controversy because they are full of contention and disputation. Anyone could focus their arguments on questioning the existence of these events, but such questions can be easily answered by referring to more concentrated scholarship. Other questions that these events prompt people to ask, however, may be more difficult to answer. Enderandpeter (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The conviction and the events surrounding it should be moved to a new section. It shouldn't be included in "legal controversy." Maybe "Prison Sentence" or "Jail Time" would be a better category. Obviously, the time Karenga spent in prison is the turning point of his life. Plus, the claims of assassination deserve more information.Nemov (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Conviction

I've deleted the reference to Karenga's alleged conviction for torture, which used an undated 1971 L.A. Times story as a reference. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm concerned that the only places I can find it are white supremacist websites. The other thing that bothers me is that the websites that supposedly quote from the L.A. Times story say Karenga held one of his victims toes in a vice -- except the word is always spelled "vise." It would be helpful if a neutral website or newspaper could be found that reported the conviction accurately, if there was one; and then it should be linked to. I'll have a look around for one. Slim 06:10, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Check out http://www.nathanielturner.com/index.html as one source that is definitely not a white supremacist site.

Specifically, http://www.nathanielturner.com/karenga2.htm Enderandpeter (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, check out http://www.bondinfo.org/. You will find that this site is not affiliated with any racist group.

Also, I just deleted that Kwanzaa is regarded as fraudulent by many black organizations including th

e Martin Luther King Foundation, because it wasn't referenced, and because the Martin Luther King Foundation website, as cited by a recent editor on the Kwanzaa article, turned out to be a Stormfront website. Slim 00:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor, by all means go ahead and re-insert the information, so long as all your claims are referenced to reputable publications and everything is written in a neutral tone. Slim 00:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Viable sources are being credited only to be ignored. Several sources were Karenga's own books; so how can Karenga's own words cause a deletion?

Because they conflict with prejudice. Keep in mind that a prejudice can take the form of an overly-favorable opinion of a person. In this case we have a figure from the political left that just, by-golly, couldn't have tortured women because he's on "the right team", politically. This prejudice is remarkably powerful. It's so powerful that a torturer of women can teach at University.

I'd like to point out to Slim that "vise" is the standard American spelling of the clamping tool that is being described in the allegations. I have no other knowledge about the allegations or history here (in fact, I just read this article to find out who Ran Karenga is), and agree that "undated article only cited on white supremacist websites" sounds pretty fishy. But the spelling of "vise" versus "vice" is what I'd expect in an American newspaper and should have no bearing on evaluation of the source's credibility. Brett A. Thomas 15:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC) This could very well be the most whitewashed article in all the Wiki verse. Deleting the fact of his conviction for torture when it is not only in the public record but common knowledge to anyone who was a literate adult in 1969-70. Oldpanther 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Karenga the convicted felon

The heat remains intense over his felony conviction. This man is simply not notable for that dark event and it is quite inappropriate to introduce him as "an African-American professor of Africana Studies, scholar/activist, author, convicted felon, and best known as the creator of the pan-African and African American holiday of Kwanzaa". It is clearly something that this article should mention, which it does, but I also don't think we should be comfortable with some of the wording in the last sentence of Karenga, Us and Prison Sentence that speaks of "Karenga's excuse" because it clearly sounds accusatory. If such language continues to infect this article, it will never improve. I greatly appreciate the conversation that has surrounded this odd man's controversy and most editors' goals of being forthright, honest, and (most importantly) neutral. The intro should obviously be re-written, and I hope the remedy I offer is satisfying to most people. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. Enderandpeter (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Kwanzaa's origin

Might anyone know the book of Karenga's that is referred to in the Kawaida, the Nguzo Saba, and Kwanzaa section? A date of 1977 is given, but I cannot find a book of his through World Cat that was published in that year, although there are plenty before and after. I'd like to add it to the reference list. Also, I know that I've read an interview of his where he admitted that Kwanzaa was not based on any African practice and he was reluctant to admit this at first, fearing that people may not want to observe it if they knew it was his invention. If I find that, I'll add it, but anyone else should if they know the source I'm talking about. Enderandpeter (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You can email the organization, Karenga folk love to talk about his books. But I have looked also and cannot find it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Karenga on Flickr

There are several images of Maulana Karenga on Flickr, which should provide us access for the article. I'm reviewing the markup and general steps for uploading such an image to Wikimedia Commons. Please feel free to beat me to this :-) Enderandpeter (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny You must have read my mind., I was just coming here to see who was going about getting a photo. (not that i plan to do it).--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, good sir. Actually, this won't be as easy as I thought. We need to find something either in the public domain or licensed through Creative Commons that allows sharing. None of the Flickr photos I found allow this. There's gotta be something, though... Enderandpeter (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, there is this photo. I distinctly recall it being up here in the past and I assumed it was removed for legitimate reasons. According to the photo's description, it was moved from en.wikipedia to Wikimedia via a bot script and the status of its usability is pending review. The authorship is credited to this user. I'll see what else I can find out... Enderandpeter (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this picture is actually already being used in the Kwanzaa article, so I see no issue with having it here too. I went ahead and verified its move to Wikimedia Commons and appended some relevant categories to it. I'm going to go ahead and put it back. Enderandpeter (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming, linking

SlimVirgin, thanks for the links. and dropping the "Dr." seem consistent, I just missed it. As for "Ron" vs "Maulana" ... Maulana is only a title in Swahili, in English, its a string of letters. Its the string of letters Karenga uses on his website and business cards, so I thought it appropriate in this context.

Hi Lonestar, sorry for thinking the page moves might be vandalism. It's just that you don't have a user page and this page has been subjected to quite a bit of vandalism in the past. I've just restructured the article a bit, and I took out all the extra names, all the akas, because it made him look dodgy. As for Maulana, I take your point. Does he actually call himself Maulana Karenga, instead of Ron Karenga, or is he Ron Maulana Karenga? By the way, you can sign your name after your posts by typing four tildes (top lefthand key on most kwerty keyboards) like this ~~~~. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks I see it's been a struggle to maximize the signal-to-noise or light-to-heat ratio, but the current result seems to do that quite admirably.

I did pull his card out again and confirm it shows "Maulana Karenga" along with the titles "Dr.", "Chair", "Executive Director".

Lonestarnot 09:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you've convinced me. I also did a Google search, and it backs up what you said: 69 entries for Ron Maulana Karenga; 4,700 for Ron Karenga, and 16,200 for Maulana Karenga, so that's pretty conclusive. One question: if we change it, should we say "also known as Ron Karenga," and if we do, what about Ron Everett? Two akas doesn't look good. One the one hand, I hate to leave the names out, because we shouldn't delete accurate information, but on the other hand, we don't want to make him look odd. What do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I started a new section when I should have had everything here. This is what I suggest--when talking about his birth, it should read "Born as Ron Everett in 19XX." Then it should be noted when he changed his name (and briefly talk about why). Afterwards, refer to him by Maulana Karenga. No one, for example, refers to Kareem Abdul Jabbar as Lew Alcindor (no journalist or writer I mean). I hope this is helpful. --Lester Spence 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

His birth name, if different (obviously the case here), should be noted. Also, if he has published or done anything of consequence (admittedly a bit nebulous) under one or more other names, it should be noted (and sourced). 66.234.204.13 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Organization appears to still exist

The article as it is today (Dec 21, 2005) states that "The US Organization disbanded in 1971 after..." yet the organization is online at [10] The History page mentions the founding of the organization in 1965 but does not mention the disbanding. It may be that Dr. Karenga re-formed the organization sometime later or that it in fact never actually disbanded but went more into a dormant state for some period of time.

Not having more details (or time to find them today), I won't edit the text, but I thought the issue should be raised. Dyork 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, according to Scott Brown, author of Fighting for US: Maulana Karenga, the US Organization, and Black Cultural Nationalism , the "US" doesn't stand for United Slaves. From the introduction of the book: The repeated usage of the term “united slaves,” as a reference for the US Organization, is perhaps the best example of the lasting consequences of the US/Panther conflict.1 The name “US” actually stands for Black people: the pronoun “US” as opposed to “them,” the White oppressors. As an article in the journal Black Dialogue in 1966 stated, “US means exactly that—all of US (black folks).”2 During the late 1960s, some of US’s rivals and opponents used the term “united slaves” to ridicule the group. This slur has been given, unwittingly, scholarly credence in several works on the Black Power movement, in spite of the fact that there are no documents or recorded speeches in which Karenga or any US members refer to their organization as such. link: [11](scroll to bottom of page for intro of book)

Metalsmith  Jan 13, 2006

Thank you, 74.248.204.16, for adding some insightful information about Karenga's activities while incarcerated. I will look for that Ebony article. I've been having a hard time finding any published sources that talk about his time in prison, and it looks like other editors have been having trouble too, so thank you again.

Now, I don't think the article should suggest that US is still disbanded. Seeing how the group still has a website and even a December 2011 activities newsletter, they are clearly still active, although nowhere near the same level as the past. I will make a note of this in parenthesis to mark that this information doesn't come from the source you cited. Ender and Peter 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The organization was disbanded, but Karenga re-established it after his imprisonment, as stated in the article. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's re-establishment is mentioned. Sorry I missed that. Ender and Peter 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-neutral language

I don't know anything about the subject of this article -- I came to Wikipedia to find out -- but some of the language used in the present version of the article is clearly at odds with the neutral tone that best suits encyclopedic writing, such as: "Central to Karenga's doctrine are the Nguzo Saba, the Seven Principles of Blackness, which can be easily summed up as a smart arse version of 'Apartheid' by a desperate beast trying to legitimate his disgraceful history. Unless you are totally naive - duh!" 98.164.196.32 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) In fact, after looking over the history of edits, it is clear that the edits of 16th June should all be reverted on technical grounds -- they detract from the dispassionate tone of academic writing. If there is a legitimate POV behind these edits that has heretofore been missing from this article (and I see the article has been a lightning rod of controversy for a long time), this POV must be expressed more carefully. As currently expressed, the edits of 16th June undermine their own authority by their frequent lapses from the standards of academic writing. 98.164.196.32 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I rolled 'em all back. Real poor. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect conflict

The redirect to this article at Karenga needs to be changed to a disambiguation page, in the manner of Martínez. I am about to create the article for the town of Karenga, Uganda which will bring to four the number of articles to be disambiguated. As there appear to be many editors with strong opinions about this article I wanted to collect comments first. -Keitsist (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Go for it! :-) Ender and Peter 15:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The people have spoken. Let it be so. Keitsist (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Karenga 1977

I cannot find any book published in 1977 that is being used for Ngbo Saba.--Inayity (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A teacher and a scholar

In response to what strongly appeared to be vandalism, user Paul Barlow changed an occupation title from what was originally "Scholar" (and then changed to "Convicted Criminal") to "Teacher", in hopes of coming to a middle ground with any controversy regarding opinions of Karenga's scholarship. I changed "Teacher" back to "Scholar", but now that I'm looking at the title "Professor", I can't help but to view that title as implying both his practice of teaching and scholarship. In that case "Scholar" is actually not necessary, so I'll make that change as well.

In my view, your opinion of the quality of one's scholarship can influence your view of them as a "true" scholar. To me, there comes to be a point where someone can engage in scholarship to such an unavoidably objective extent (as in being awarded Ph.Ds, writing numerous books on a subject you have gained notoriety in, giving talks at universitys, etc.) that even though you feel their scholarship is unproductive or the scholar is hypocritical, they are still engaging in the act. In Karenga's case, if a school grants you a professorship, inevitably that institution expects you to both teach students and engage in scholarship. Ender and Peter 16:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Karenga is a Scholar, what else would he be? The man wrote an ideological book called about ethics in Ancient Egypt 1000s of pages of serious scholarship, created the Ngubo Saba and he is not a scholar? If he isnt then neither is Plato.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you understand I agree with you that he is a scholar. I'm even of the opinion that the Scholarly method article and also, say, Random House Dictionary's view of a scholar is an accurate description of Karenga's approach to acquiring and disseminating knowledge. However, if he is listed as a "Professor", does that not imply both teaching and scholarship? A professor is expected and understood to be a scholar and so additionally listing him as "Scholar" seems redundant, is my point. Calling him a "Professor" establishes him as a "Scholar", and that's why I removed that description. If you insist on explicitly naming him as such, I will not resist this, but again, his identity as a Scholar has already been clearly communicated and so it seems unnecessary.

I'm not so keen on your decision to remove the Michael Eric Dyson article and replace it with Karenga's main website which is already prominently featured. It's a good article that highlights some of the social questions that Karenga's holiday have inspired black people to confront, notably the Pan-Afircan / Diasporic viewpoints of racial and ethnic identity. Yes, it doesn't focus on Karenga the man himself too extensively, but it is completely relevant to his influence on these debates and conversations. I suppose the link to Karenga's main site can stay down there, but I stress again that it is already well advertised. It should at least be listed first. And the Dyson article can be last... Ender and Peter 17:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I didnt even see it was Dyson. I am also agreeing with you and disagreeing with anyone that says otherwise. I kind of always prefer dedicated sites for external links than articles. But that is in the ideal case and with Karenga there is not that many dedicated external sites. Karenga really needs to sort out his official site.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "occupation" is used in this context to describe the subject's profession and primary source of income, not how he occupies his time. While both professor and author may be appropriate, "scholar" and "philosopher" would not. Anyone with a PhD would, pretty much by defnition, be a scholar and philosopher. The "occupation" identifier shouldn't be littered with extraneous and subjective resume'-builders. John2510 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous link removed

I removed the following

The FBI attempted to aggravate the conflict. Tactics used to foment and aggravate conflict between US and the Panthers included poison-pen letters, defamatory cartoons, agents provocateurs, and creating suspicion of members of each organization as agents.^[1]

The source is an attack site. If someone can find a real link for the FBI issues, please put the text back with the new source.

Here's what Google says when I try to access the site:

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 15 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-09-25, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-09-25.

Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including wawona-yosemite.org/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS35909 (ERGOS-TECHNOLOGY).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, icdc.com/~paulwolf appeared to function as an intermediary for the infection of 13 site(s) including gulujer.exblog.jp/, colombiafamiliar.blogspot.com/, tajikam.com/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.105.5 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

References

^ "INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS". FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES UNITED STATES SENATE. US Senate. Retrieved September 28, 2011.

Unfounded statement on Swahili language - culture

Text: name for the Swahili first fruit celebration, “matunda ya kwanza.” This is not correct and unreferenced. There is a footnote here but this refers just to a pamphlet of the Kwanzaa Movement. They are surely free to believe what they like but a wikipedia article should not connect this falsely to Swahili language or culture. Kwanzaa is a neologism coined for specific purposes of Karengas project. It is not Swahili language. Besides even by now the "official Kwanzaa" site does not claim anymore a Swahili heritage for this, but refer to the (only known) "first fruit" celebration in Africa, which is outside the tropics in South Africa. There is no "Swahili first fruit celebration". Can this please be thrown out? Else someone please bring a scholarly reference about its existence (I love to learn!!!) Kipala (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the corrections.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Per discussion on Kwanzaa do not make WP:OR to the WP:BIO--Inayity (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Ex-convict"...

...seems a little NPOV to be putting in the first sentence of the article. I don't know much about this guy, but clearly he's a lot more notable for other things than for being a convict. Put it this way -- it makes sense to put a reference to a conviction in the first sentence of an article about, say, Eric Rudolph or Stanley Williams, but not so much Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi, even though all were at some point convicted of a crime. Seems to me that the reference to his conviction is best kept in it's existing section within the article. I'm going ahead and removing that for now. Betterusername (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't in the first sentence. Badagnani (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was until I took it out... Betterusername (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

and I am going to put it back, it was discussed, and it was compromised by putting it in the 2nd paragraph. but its not. there is nothing about it in the begining at all. not till the end! people, i know what your trying to do here, but you cant just erase that someone tortured 2 women because you want him to sound better. Cray1000 (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm - and your "NPOV" rewrite is less NPOV than the previous version. Tedickey (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

tedickey, my re-write changed it to a simple statement of fact and put as the last sentence of the paragraph instead of in the first. I would think that you can agree that the fact that he was convicted of a felony for torturing a women is important enough to have somewhere in the beginning of the article? Not having it somewhere in the beginning is not neutral, instead its trying to make him sound better by hiding his criminality. Him inventing a major holiday does not erase the terrible crime he committed and it should not be hidden. Also, in the sourced dartmouth review, it states when he left prison he became a straight up marxist. so i believe the last sentence of the first paragraph should read: "In 1971 he was convicted of felony assault and false imprisonment and was released in 1975" I dont see how this couldnt be NPOV. he did it, that is not in dispute. its sourced. its major enough to have in the first part of the article. hiding it in the 2nd to last paragraph is not enough. Cray1000 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Most people can see the table-of-contents, which points them there immediately. Tedickey (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would argue being convicted for torturing two women is as notable as creating a holiday in the 60's, and therefore to maintain NPOV this crime deserves mention at the beginning of the article. Confining this to the subsection seems trying to POV obfuscate it. --Xris0 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

have it your way - if you're a "scientist", Karenga's notablily is associated with "convicted felon". (but I've read through some of your edits - regards) Tedickey (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My take on this article: first, It is absolutely relevant that this man tortured two women. To be the author of such a crime is as relevant as to be the author of a stupid holiday. Second, probably because of his partisans, it is not well explained why did he do it. Why did he and the others torture those women? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.203.163 (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the man is not notable for being a convicted felon. There are literally millions of convicted felons and they do not all get Wikipedia pages. Moreover, those who are arguing that he's "notable" for being a convicted felon seem to be motivated out of some particular animosity towards what this man is notable for: the invention of Kwanzaa. That's what should be emphasized in the article and in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. I have no opinion on whether it's okay to mention his felony conviction in the lead (it may be appropriate per a neutral biographical sketch), but it is not one of his major "identifiers" any more than it would be for, say, Rory Calhoun. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The other millions of convicted felons don't have their own page because they weren't selected by the left wing establishment as someone important and deserving of attention. The fact that he's famous is the reason for having a Wiki page, and in this Wiki all relevant facts may be disclosed about his life. A conviction which has a direct impact on someone's life for years is clearly notable.

I'm not really familiar with this person, but the "convicted felon" bit is pretty jarring in the opening of this article. Looking at the opening sentence of another convicted criminal's page I see the following: "Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (/mænˈdɛlə/;[4] Xhosa pronunciation: [xoˈliːɬaɬa manˈdeːla]; 18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999." You actually have to dig down pretty far to see that he was involved in founding MK which, among other things, killed and tortured people. However the world, rightly in my mind, generally views him as his article presents him as a man who faced adversity and rose to lead his nation. Again, not really knowledgeable about the guy in this article but the "convicted felon" bit is the first I'd ever heard of it in relation to the holiday he actually is known for. Kevin Lyda (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy"

"The convictions nonetheless continue to generate controversy during Kwanzaa celebrations." Really? Because in the linked article justifying this opinion I read the following: "NAACP President Rosemary Harris said she knew nothing of Karenga’s criminal history until a discussion began among organizers after questions from The Gazette." So in a holiday she celebrated for over a decade and a half, this topic had never come up.

It seems to me that this conviction is used by some people in the US to try and generate controversy. An attempt that seems to have limited success amongst the people who celebrate that holiday. When searching on Google for "Kwanzaa convicted felon" I only get sites that accept user content and right-wing sites. The Gazette article is the only exception - and it's endorsement history has leaned right. And while there's nothing wrong with noting that his conviction generates controversy among the American right-wing, it seems very wrong to extend that to a blanket statement. Kevin Lyda (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I changed the opening sentence from "Ron Karenga (born July 14, 1941), also known as Ron Everett, is a convicted felon and avowed Marxist." to "Ron Karenga (born July 14, 1941) is an African-American author and political activist, Karenga is best known as the founder of Kwanzaa, a holiday first celebrated by African-Americans in California, December 26, 1966 to January 1, 1967." To emphasize what is important about Karenga. I put the fact that he was a felon and a marxist near the end of the opening paragraph because they are not the reason for Karenga's fame. SlimVirgin reverted this edit though. Facts 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Facts, I'm sorry, I don't know what happened there, but I thought you had introduced the convicted felon thing into the intro, which I why I reverted. I don't think it should be in the intro at all, because it's not what he's known for, and I feel it's an attempt to poison the well. I've restored the intro I would like to see — or something like that anyway. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I do think it should be in the intro, BECAUSE it's currently not what he's known for, yet it's an important fact about the man. If wikipedia were here to reinforce what everybody already knows, it would be worthless. That a convicted torturer started Kwanza is important. mc6809

What he is known for is starting Kwanza. That is his importance. I am not sure how much his conviction of felonious assault has affected him, maybe someone who knows more about him can comment on that. As such, I think the latter mentioning of his torture conviction is fine, until someone can clarify how important it is to the life of Karenga. Also, you can sign your posts with '~~~~'. Cheers. Facts 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A conviction for the torture of two women is certainly an important comment on the character of the man. How could it not be? Mc6809e 03:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia only reflects what published sources say and what the majority and significant-minority opinions are. It is not the majority opinion that he is best known for being a felon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there are plenty of things mentioned in the first two paras about the man that he is not best known for. Is he really best known for being chairman of the black studies department at California State University, Long Beach from 1989 to 2002? Or that his real name is Ron Everett? No. Yet these things are mentioned because they're important facts about the man. I submit that his conviction for the torture of women is also an important fact about the man. That's part of who he is. That's part of his history. If anything, such a fact ought to at least be elevated to the Background section as part of the short timeline given there. 24.173.155.146 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree mentioning his felony conviction is the 2nd paragraph is OK, but the way it is currently written is not ok. Apparently the article was on the front page and some trolls got to it, I'm going to revert it back to a workable state, and add the information to the 2nd paragraph. Facts 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'd call them trolls exactly. They do these sorts of things because they really believe it's important that people know this about the man and I agree it's important. I don't like their tactics, though. It always back-fires in the end. Still, it is remarkable that this serious crime he committed remained invisible for so long. There is such a thing as being POV by omission and I think this article was at one point an example of that. But hey, the system seems to have worked, right? Mc6809e

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maulana Karenga. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 18:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Appears that the nom has made a good case to rename this article. Objections have been answered well and to resolution. This has been long in coming. Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 20:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ron Karenga → Maulana Karenga – This is the name that the subject goes by on his web site and the name by which press reports call him.[12][13][14] It was the name of the article before users moved it twice without discussion.[15][16] The move rationale was "Rm Islamic honorifics." "Mawlānā" is indeed an Islamic honorific, and the subject knows full well where it comes from, and he uses it as his name. Users don't go around moving articles about people named "Stuart" based on whether they're guardians of noble houses, nor "Roy" based on whether they're kings. The rationale is invalid. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. samee ^talk 06:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit of an unusual case isn't it. Can the IP cite any other BLPs which have been made exceptions to WP:HON because they've renamed themselves "Master"? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose There was a years-long debate about a similar situation involving Mahatma Gandhi. I would venture to say that Gandhi is known by as many, if not more people, as Mahatma than as Mohandas. I don't believe the same can be said of Ron Karenga. If you believe I'm wrong, please provide reasonable evidence in support of your argument. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Response: First, I don't know if the users who moved the article knew it, but Prof. Karenga isn't a Muslim; he's sort-of a Kemetist. So he doesn't use "Maulana" with specific Muslim connotation and this isn't a situation like "Mullah Omar" or "Ayatollah Khomeini." Second, Gandhi never adopted "Mahatma" as his name or ceased to acknowledge his given name. While Prof. Karenga previously used "Maulana" as a title before his given name, he now uses it in place of a name. He's mainly known today as the creator of Kwanzaa and sources referring to him in that context consistently call him Maulana (ibid.) except for the occasional white conservative writing a hit piece. Additionally his employer lists him as "Maulana,"[17] as have peer-reviewed journals that publish his work.[18][19] He isn't doing life in prison like H. Rap Brown, but has been actively writing and speaking under his chosen name, like the late Amiri Baraka (Swahili for "prince"). So I don't see on what basis Wikipedia should have an article under a name he doesn't acknowledge. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Support: I moved the page back to where it is now because I thought this should be discussed first, but "Maulana Karenga" does appear to be how the subject is currently best known and his writings are under this name. Jonathunder (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I have asked the other user who previously moved the article to state his reasons and respond to the points that have been raised. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Please note that there is a relevant standard in the Manual of Style that the use of a subject's new name is appropriate when reliable sources written after the name-change tend to use the new name. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

[1] ttp://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=Karenga&type=historic&sortby=RELEVANCE&datetype=0&frommonth=12&fromday=04&fromyear=1881&tomonth=12&today=31&toyear=1984&By=&Title=&restrict=articles&x=72&y=15

[SenRepRA-2] "INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS". FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES UNITED STATES SENATE. US Senate. Retrieved September 28, 2011.

[1]

[1]