Talk:Kamau Kambon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] Notability

Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who advocates the complete annihilation of a race of hundreds of millions of people is notable. So, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.212.68 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor?

The opening statement claims that he is a "former professor of African Studies." His biography section, however, mentions nothing about him ever being a professor (only an associate professor.) Was he a professor or not?202.136.105.65 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I dont know, what does he do say "Hey White Guy, get out of my class." This guy to me sounds like a huge racist and shouldnt be allowed to teach.

Even some professors are fony, and have their degrees from fake degree or PhD mills. So I dont think it makes a difference, I highly doubt he has a real degree in anything other then hating white people maybe. 85.82.195.131 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Professor as a title is used to refer to full professors, associate professors, or assistant professors, including visiting or adjunct professors at those ranks. 75.177.84.51 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCState Status?

The article currently ambiguously identifies KK as a "visiting professor" at NCSU. His actual NCSU title was "affiliated faculty member", hired on an as-needed basis for a couple years. He was not awarded NCSU professor status, "visiting" or otherwise, and wasn't re-employed after The Speech. His apparent professorship was at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh NC, but he's no longer employed there. Since the page is protected, some registered Wikiite may want to clear that up. Change the first line to "...taught African Studies at North Carolina State where he was an affiliated...", etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.205.233 (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] NPOV?

I inserted a "NPOV" template into the article. It's an extremely one-sided article, as can be judged by the lead: "Advocate for racial genocide." He may be an asshole, but this is no way to make a Wikipedia article about him. --("tphcm") 208.51.23.195 03:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break. He said, "we have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem." That's advocating genocide. Descendall 01:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

But it is true. He wants to exterminate white people from the planet.

There's no denying the guy said the things he did at Howard. I suppose next we should put a flag on Adolf Hitler's article because he, too, advocated genocide.

The flag is there because this article only exists to portray him as an advocate of racial genocide. If this was a NPOV article, it would discuss other aspects of him. Even Hitler's article does this by discussing his climb to power, his personal life, etc. This article is just a collection of quotes, from one speech, making him out as an anti-white racist. He may be an anti-white racist, but that's not all he is. It's biased, and there's no denying it.

That may be true, but maybe not much is known about his personal life.

The only reason this article exists is the only reason we would care to know about this person in the first place. If he had not made those silly, inflamatory and hateful remarks, we would neither have cause nor interest to even know his name. To compare him to Hitler is to give him a claim to greater (infamy)fame than he deserves. Hitler deserves in-depth analysis because of the scope of his impact on world event. This individual has accomplished nothing but exercising his free speech. I don't think there is any valid reason to challenge the neutrality of this article, and the flag should be removed. 68.211.27.95 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)jt

The beauty is, we have the freedom to catalog possibly mentally ill people as well. If this guy isn't just grandstanding for the media and actually believes what he speaks, he's definitely got some issues. Pull the flag, the article isn't biased that I can see. I've found the same information on many other sites on the net, as silly as it is. The man definitely gives you a chuckle! He may advocate genocide, but he's obviously in no position to make that happen.

Only Blacks get handed this kid-glove treatment. In this, as always, reverse the races. Whites who are deemed racists haven't said anything close to this guy. Why is this flagged?

the only non NPOV part is the "strong african warrior" description. he sounds kinda...american to me.

I agree the the "strong african warrior" part should be removed, as well as the category link at the bottom for "idiot" in order for this article to be more neutral. EricHarvey 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

Deleted some vandalism that had been added to the article, along the lines of common derogitory language referring to afro-americans. Might wanna lock this bad boy for a while so no one does likewise, anything to do with someone with famous genocidal views is going to attract negative attention like this. -Spoonman.au, 8-Dec-2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spoonman.au (talk • contribs) 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Tagged for Cleanup

This is an encyclopedia article, not an editorial article. Please leave the emotions out of it. Present the facts and leave it at that. --Grocer 22:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha. How many white-supremacist groups are there whoch advocate the extirmination of the black race. Com[ared to them, the inverse argument is quantitatively microscopic. Please know what you are talking about before you make reverse-discrimination claims.

SO that makes it ok, Huh... I think you are the one who need to know what they are talking about. Osama, Hitler, Manson, etc... were all harmless until they gathered a following.


i agree without believers and followers these people would be nothing

This guy is a hard core racist and should be labeled as such. His views are exactly the same as the neo nazis except for the target race. His support for genocide places him in the same camp as Hitler.

    • This is not a blog. This should be tagged for bias. --Phopojijo

reverse-discrimination? no such thing - It's either discriminatory or not...

"This is not a blog. This should be tagged for bias. --Phopojijo" - What are you talking about? This should definetly not be tagged for bias. 85.82.195.131 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

This is racism against the suppposed racists. Two interesting things I'd like to point at, while coincidentially having watched the movie clip of his speech. He states that "white people are out to kill you" and "they also try to make money in the process of killing you". Two things: first a somewhat grotesque fact is that during his speech someone can be seen on the left side, his right side. Isn't he afraid? Secondly I noticed that during the video, an info box is shown which states that he is the owner of Blacknificant Books. My somewhat sharp question here would be, if that isn't making money out of someone's bethreatened death? So if he's not afraid of the person behind his back and he's making money with his books... isn't he actually doing exactly what he tries to make people believe, a "white" person does? LIllIi 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative

This Prof. Kambon clearly has some issues and it can be plainly seen when watching the video that he is under some kind of stress. What's more, I think that as can be seen from his picture in the article which has a strange likeness to drawings of Albrecht Dürer, the northern Renaissance painter, woodcarver, and draughtsman, and of the famous Italian painter Raffael, Prof. Kambon may actually be trying to emulate those giants of European civilization, or at least to bask somewhat in their glory.

This page has been vandalized and the picture listed is not a real picture of the Dr.

[edit] Mr Kambon

Please do the world a huge favor and jump off the tallest building you can find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.192.16.165 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Use of Honorific

It is inappropriate to refer to this person as 'Dr' at any place in this article. Is it wholly unproven that this person holds any degree that justifies its use. We cannot start calling everyone in the Wikipedia Doctor simply because they wake up one day and decide they have four PhD from the school of outer space wisdom.

    • Not only that it is unproven he holds PhD. He even does not claim to hold it. He simply uses DR. as part of his name, just like Dr. Dre or Dr. Alban. Moreover, encyclopedias do not refer people as "Dr." in every sentence even if it is proven they hold a PhD. 164.8.4.123 21:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He DOES hold a PhD, whether its from one of those PhD mills, were anyone can buy one, or not, I dont know, but he DOES. He used to be a psychology professor. He holds a number of other degrees too, yes, believe it or not, hes a well-educated man - all though his formulations like "in my estimation the only conclusion i have come to" - are pretty bad and makes him seem unintelligent. He has to estimate what conclusion he has come to? Well, whatever. Just a degree doesnt mean hes intelligent or anything.. hes just one of those self-victimising "civil rights leaders" pumping hate into the blood of african-americans that probably just want the best for their people. Fuck if he has a PhD or not, this man should go to jail, and hell burn in hell if there is one. 85.82.195.131 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple search for dissertations shows that he does indeed have a Ed. D. , from Teachers College probably the most prestigious institution to receive an Ed.D from, and this does entitle him to be called Dr. Even if you despise his politics, don't let that get in the away of accuracy 75.177.84.51 13:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Name

His real name is Leroy Jefferson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.14.23 (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

I have a question ?

Why he is not in jail ? Do you americans can say things like that without being sent to jail ?


He is not in jail due to the hard-fought protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. That being said, he is clearly a race pimp along the lines of a Jesse Jackson, or Alphonse Sharpton. He is and remains free to extole the trappings of his own niggerish mentality. All the while his every effort simply provides evidence to those he most despises in the world, who feel that all blacks are not worthy of citizenship here in the USA.

Here in America we have this thing called the First Amendment...wiki it.

[edit] Racist ethnocentric should be added/kept

It should be mentioned that Proffesor Kamau Kambon is a racist ethnocentric.

As Wikipedia is supposed to have a NPOV we have the obligation to tell it how it is, and not be worried about using the word racist where it perfectly fits.

Whether or not you think racism is wrong, Kamau Kambon is a racist, and supports a racist agenda, it should be duly noted in any encyclopaedia article.

How the term "racist" or "ethnocentric" is taken by the reader is up to the reader's own prejudices. Wikipedia should not be motivated by prejudice. PyroGamer 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no argumentation against keeping racist or ethnocentric - yet it keeps getting removed. Kamau Kambon is a racist, due to his racist beliefs. Anyone proposing extermination of an entire race, is a racist. That goes for Kamau Kambon and anyone else. Of course, Kamau and anyone else, could apologize for their statements and make up for some of the damage of their own reputation, but Kamau Kambon hasnt even attempted doing this, his initial statement simply expressed that he still subscribed to his racist beliefs.

I will try to keep it here, but I dont have much time for this, and I know there will be more vandalism. We can only get this done, if we stand together - so revert it, if you see someone removing it - that is, unless someone can argumentate against it first. 85.82.195.131 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was taught that racism did not apply to minorities since they cannot benefit. Perhaps I was taught wrong, maybe it's Political Correctness clouding my vision. Sneakernets 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The term racist is a definition that applies to all human beings, black or white. If it wasnt, it would ironically be a racist term. SenseOnes 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borat

why is borat linked to this page?

[edit] Extremism

I thing he should be named an extremist because he proposed white genocide. Any white person proposing genocide against black would be tagged so.

[edit] Hitler reference

I've removed "Like fellow proponent of genocide, Adolf Hitler, Mr. Kambon is a vegan", because it seemed irrelevant and far from neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.187.170 (talk) 01:14, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of Hitler, not even he has the labels "Ethnocentric" and "Racist" on his page header! Stevo D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo D (talk • contribs) 03:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hitler isnt here today to be an ACTIVE advocate of racial genocide. Kamau Kambon is an active advocate of the racial genocide of whites, he has stated this and keeps stating it in interviews. The fact is, Hitler, before he died, advocated the degradation and slave-like life of Jews, a small minority on earth. Kamau Kambon advocates the racial genocide of all Europeans and whites, meaning hundreds of millions of people, possibly a billion living people, that he wants to see dead and actively encourages the murder and killing of. Therefore he is an ethnocentric racist, and anyone that disagrees is a racist himself, or simply in total ignorance. Kamau Kambon should have this label until he takes distance from these views, but he hasnt done this, in fact hes done quite the opposite. So maybe you hate white people too, and dont want him to have this label. But since the label is true by the persons own standards (the ideologies to which he openly, continously, actively subscribe to), they cannot be denied on wikipedia. And you should be glad he isnt labelled a proviolent psychopath here, but we dont have that diagnose, we can only stick to the facts. SenseOnes 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Above this I explained the distinction between Mr. Kambon and Hitler, and other then this, I would like to recommend people to keep it to themselves what feelings they associate with the word "racist". Because obviously, racism means beliefs that are based on one race rather then another (race ism), and White Holocaust/Genocide is therefore obviously racist, and anyone that actively supports a such ideology is a racist. Now remember the definition of the word each time I say it, instead of associating it with the feelings you get, thinking the emotional type of context the media normally uses it in. SenseOnes 08:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description as racist

I have just removed the description of Kamau Kambon as 'racist' and 'ethnocentrist', and replaced it with the less controversial 'Black nationalist'. Before someone reverts those changes, let me explain why:

  • So someone who advocates the genocide of a race isnt' 'racist' he's a 'nationalist'? Think it might be more accurate to just call him what he is - a racist. The H-Man2 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP policy, linked at the top of this page, states that 'unsourced controversial material about living people must be removed'. Like it or not, calling someone racist is controversial - even though for Mr. Kambon, it is entirely accurate.

For further explanation, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint: the short version is, Wikipedia does not generally describe people as racists, even when they obviously are. The term may be true, but it is considered non-neutral to use it; a similar restriction applies to labelling people 'terrorists'.

Instead, if a reference can be found calling Mr. Kambon a racist (which shouldn't be too hard), we can say 'he has been called racist (citation 1), ethnocentrist (citation 2)', etc. Yes, it seems like weaselling out of the issue, but it's how other pages approach it (see, for instance, David Duke).

In short: yes, he is a racist, but we can't call him one without a reference. I hope that makes things clearer for everybody. Terraxos 00:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then what you can say is that he is a "Nationalist" who promotes and advocates the annihilation of an entire Race of Peoples. There are many other nationalists who do not take such a stance.

I dont agree. You are right that there are rules about this, but the ones you quote dont neccesarrily apply to this example. Why? Because you are basing it on the claim that "racist" is less neutral then "black nationalist". And why is that? Because racist, for many people, is an emotional word and not a rational word. How can you describe him as actively being a "black national-ist", but not a race-ist/racist? There is no reason, other then the fact many people associate the word racist with emotions.

Calling for extermination of an entire race is not nationalist, it is proviolent racism by any standard, and it is psychopathic. White nationalists rarely ever do this (and never on C-Span), yet they are called neo-nazis, violent psychopaths, racists, evil people and bad men actively in the media, and wikipedia does nothing but reference all these extreme descriptions and oppiniated statements about them. But when a black guy does the same, he is simply dubbed a nationalist. How is this fair? This will bias this article and wikipedia even more.

Why not call him a racist as long as he stands by his racist beliefs? It is not racist to be a white or black nationalist, to want to better white or black people, but it is racist to advocate racial genocide of ANY race, white or black or asian or anything. SenseOnes 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" - this is NOT poorly sourced, or unsourced. This case is different. Advocating racial genocide and supremacy is racist, by any standard. Racist. He is a racist, he actively encourages a racist ideology, murdering millions of people based on their race. That is advocating racial violence, please see the definition of racism. It is irrelevant in a case like this, if the truth harms the reputation of Mr. Kambon, as long as it is the truth. It cannot be denied on wikipedia.

There is a distinction between the KKK and Kamau Kambon and Adolf Hitler. First of all, Kamau Kambon is alive and keeps actively standing by his statements and advocacy of racial genocide in interviews. Second of all, racial genocide of an entire race is racist no matter how you put it. Third of all, the KKK is an entire historical poltical organization with several purposes other then simply slaying black people. It didnt advocate racial genocide either, but racial suppression of rights, so you cannot compare it completely. And fourth, Adolf Hitler is long gone, dead and didnt directly advocate racial genocide of entire races. As the KKK, he advocated that certain lingual/ethnic groups (not races) should work for other certain lingual/ethnic groups. Eventually it ended up with mass murder, but thats not what I'm trying to describe here. Im not describing who killed who, but who advocates or advocated what. And Mr Kambon is a racist, it is not oppinion, it is fact, racism has been defined over and over again, and in short it is any ideology based on advocacy of negative and positive differences of racial groups based entirely on race.

Also, the distinction between controversial and non-controversial terms: if wikipedia has to limit the truth not to offend any ethnic group(s), wikipedia is doomed to be biased. Anyone can change oppinion at any time, so the truth is, it is no different to call a person "black nationalist", or "racist", or "ethnocentrist", or "black supremacist", or "existentialist", etc, when it is based on beliefs and statements. This is what you fail to understand, because anyone can change oppinion and take distance from their previous statements at any time. But until they do, they have to be dubbed what they state to believe in.

Also, let me remind that David Duke hasnt advocated the racial genocide of any racial group, and therefore is not a valid example for comparison. SenseOnes 10:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anyom

Lock this page its getting vandal like hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.208.168 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New improvements

Howard University Law School incident-section re-added and improved with lots of new references and an actual transcript, and antisemitic UNC-TV interview mentioned in first section. Tell me what you think. We should consider removing the notabillity tag, unless someone has complaints? SenseOnes 08:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of NPOVing your addition, and fixing some of the errors. Some parts, which were obvious BLP violations, I removed. Yahel Guhan 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of your stuff is original research etc, and some of your stuff undermines this guys statements by simply deleting actual quotes. Please write here where you see BLP violations. SenseOnes 07:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP states Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space [1] verifies nothing. It is just a search page. Blogs are not reliable sources (SEE WP:SPS). [2] is a self published source, so it must follow WP:SELFPUB, which states Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

--Yahel Guhan 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If following a rule significantly decreases the quality of the article, we should ignore the rule, according to WP:Ignore all rules. SenseOnes 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR has limitations. If the imformation doesn't increase the quality of the article, which it doesn't, than the rules should not be ignored. This is still a BLP violation, and if you revert again, It might be grounds for a block. Yahel Guhan 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Other then this, I have to say it is not poorly sourced, it does not contain original research and the only real violation is the fact that the transcript is from a blog. But since we dont have better, we shouldnt revise the whole article simply of that reason. SenseOnes 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced, and if a blog is the only source that contains the transcript, it says something about its notability. If it was important or notable, there would be reliable sources which discussed it. Yahel Guhan 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Even with what you're saying, your revision is no better. And since the incident has been covered by Fox News, its at least notable, that doesnt mean people release transcripts. Even your revision cites the blog reference, but since we dont have anything better, we should not let that rule interfere with maintaining the quality of the article, since the article in general is not in conflict with WP:BLP and has a level of notabillity, and even if it didnt, your revision would be no better. As Jimbo Wales puts it, IAR is the first rule to consider, and all though it has limitations, we can afford to violate WP:SPS. For now I will compromise and remove the One and Only statement according to WP:SELFPUB. SenseOnes 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If my revision cites the blog reference, that is by accident, and it should be removed. "if we don't have anything better" than the event isn't really that notable. We present what fox news said, and what the other reliable sources say, and thats all we present in this article. Any more is a violation of policy. We cannot quote questionable sources that clearly violate WP:BLP, which your version does. WP:SPS is a part of WP:BLP. See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. So no, we cannot, and should not violate WP:SPS; not in this case. Yahel Guhan 04:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

Maybe if these terms can be worked into the article, ok. Otherwise WP:GTL, thanks, --Tom 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yahel Guhan...

Why are you policing this article so religiously? I think old Leroy Jefferson opened himself up to a little ridicule with his speech back in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.202.148 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Apparently we cannot even call him a racist even though he clearly is. The H-Man2 14:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

This guy is not notable at all. He is only claim to fame is youtube videos from biased users and a few minor articles. This page most definitely needs to be deleted. I am putting him on deletion review. Before I begin I must mention deletion reviews are not a place to vote and only facts and reason can be used.YVNP (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow that seems like a rather arbitrary decisionRastov 21:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it is helpful to have this on here, so that people can look him up. He has wrote a few books (now out of print) that should also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.17.38 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC) He is better on news wiki though. I think his news coverage makes him better for newswiki. W ikipedia si not here to give exposure to people.YVNP (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

The racism and genocide categories are violations of WP:BLP, and should not be included in reference to this guy. Yahel Guhan 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP#Categories states:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see Invasion of privacy#False light). Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

First, the purpose of Category:Racism is not clearly stated in the text. His comments are mentioned, but he isn't accused of being a racist by anyone. Second, The cat gives him a poor reputation, and therefore extra caution needs to be used. Overall, it doesn't belong. Yahel Guhan 17:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with common sense known that a person that calls for the extermination of a race is a racist. Just like Hitler, this man called for the extermination of people. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
his is your interpritation of his comment. Unlike Hitler, he is not widely recognized as a racist. Yahel Guhan 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Fox News article mentions Kambon and others being black racists. The organizer of the event, Opio Sokoni, said "I organized the Pro-Black Media Forum where Dr. Kamau Kambon made the comments about exterminating all whites while on CSPAN. No one could have ever known that this former North Carolina State University professor would go off the cuff and make such immoral and unproductive remarks. We were all taken off guard – especially since he had said earlier that black people were not niggers but imitation niggers. If this is the case, his comments were not pro-black but imitation Hitler." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Where does the Fox News article refer to him as a "black racist." They say he wants to exterminate white people, but they do not specificly refer to him as a racist. Also, I cannot seem to locate Opio Sokoni's comment. Can you provide a link to it? Yahel Guhan 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It's in the World Net Daily article you removed, the same one I put back. Are you saying that exterminating white people is not a racist comment? Are you really going to say that his comments are not racist? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Carolina Journal article, the author says "Prior to his call for genocide against white people..." So I'm putting back the genocide category since you seem to have an issue with the obvious racist comments. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the worldnetdaily article because it isn't a reliable source. Unreliable sources should not be used to make claims. I didn't say anything about whether his comments were racist or not. But I do have a problem with labeling him when no reliable source says he is so. Yahel Guhan 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The Carolina Journal article says he called for the genocide of a race. Calling for the genocide of a race is racism. Please don't try to play semantics. This category addition is rather obvious given what he said. Also, the WND article has valuable information for the article and why is it not reliable? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The definition of racism. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well now you are getting into the WP:SYNTH arguement. Yahel Guhan 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm pointing out what the definition of a racist is so that you can put 2+2 together when reading the Carolina Journal article that says it was a call for genocide (why the genocide cat is added); a person can't call for the genocide of a race without being a racist.
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily. Worldnetdaily is has a conservative bias notable for promoting fringe theories. Doesn't seem reliable to me. Yahel Guhan 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the WND article and tell me where it seems to display a conservative bias. I've seen articles with The Huffington Post and other liberal sites, and no one seems to have a problem with those?

AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC) The WND article has an imporant quote by the organizer that I already mentioned. It's a very relevant piece for this article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WND is bias. They are notable for their conservative bias, and this article does seem to take a pro-white conservative stance on the issue. "No one could have ever known that this former North Carolina State University professor would go off the cuff and make such immoral and unproductive remarks" clearly shows a bias toward the issue. Second, reguardless of importance, if it is not a reliable source, which it is not, it should not be included, as it may be adding incorrect and bias information. I'm not going to comment on the inclusion of the Huffington Post. If you have a problem with its inclusion on other articles, start a thread at WP:RS/N, and request its removial from wikipedia, but don't use that as an excuse to include bias and incorrect material from the other side. Yahel Guhan 07:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL. WND is biased? is it biased to refer to a call for genocide as "immoral and unproductive" ? I have never heard such bs in my life. Yet again Yahel's political beliefs are showing in his edits. His statements were obviously racist, and when something is that obvious, citations are not required.

Stop gaming wikipedia in order to prove a point. Next time I mention George Bush as the president of the US, do I need to find sources, or will you accept that it is the truth? Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kamau Kambon clearly falls under the racist category. This seems to go without saying, it's that blatantly obvious. I've restored the category. It is not, as claimed by Yahel, a BLP violation. Lara❤Love 05:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. First, mind WP:STALK. Second, It isn't "blatantly obvious." It is your own interpritation of his comments, not based on any reliable source presented within this article. Yahel Guhan 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Genocide = racism is not an interpretation. Read up, consensus is not on your side. Past that, hi, I'm Lara. You're going to get to know me well, because I've added several articles in the race category to my watchlist having seen what a mess their histories are becoming with content disputes. You continually revert over long periods of time until one side gives up. If you give up, you just wait some time then start back up with it. That's not going to happen again. Consensus has been reached on these articles for these edits you're making. If you want to change consensus, you need to do it through discussion. Lara❤Love 13:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I had no problem with teh genocide cat, because unlike the racism cat, there were reliable sources for it. Besides, we already have the black supremacy cat in the article; with those two, it is a bit redundent. Yahel Guhan 05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahel, you have already set poor precedent with regards to WP:STALK. You simply need to apply the same standards to similar articles, stop revert wars, and look for consensus on article discussion pages - none of which I feel you are capable of at this time. I truly hope you are able to step back and see that there is a reason you are in the minority on these discussion pages. Your own connotations of 'racism' and 'pride' are making it nearly impossible for you to constructively edit, and it is becoming extremely disruptive, as well as destructive. the_undertow talk 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I really don't care what you think of me. If you have article issues to discuss, speak. If your issue is me, get over it. Yahel Guhan 05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)