Talk:Tariq Nasheed

Deletion?

And meanwhile every conservative's page sounds like it was written by the SPLC. Just look at Brittany Pettibone compared to Tariq's. This site needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.26.234 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone seriously wants to look at deleting this article, please provide valid reasons for doing so. See Wikipedia:Deletion process. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

Add {{Pp-vandalism|small=yes}} on the top of the article. 221.126.236.94 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Birth date

@Cs california: Please do not add unreliable sources, especially not for living people. The tweet you cited doesn't mention a year, and the other two sources are not reliable at all. If this cannot be supported by a reliable source, it shouldn't be included at all. Celebrity blogs and similar are useless, not least because all it takes is for one of them to make it up and then for the rest to run with it. Likewise, we absolutely should not include these kinds of bad sources this to avoid creating WP:CIRC situations. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: The tweet site is a primary source and is consistent with the two other sources which is also consistent with myheratige.com (first result is him under Biographical Summaries of Notable People). You did not even make any attempts to prove that his birth date is incorrect. This article is categorized as a stub so adding more information should be fine. Per your WP:CIRC claim where in the previous sources did it reference wikipedia? I don't know what your obsession is with hiding this guys birth date/age when other higher tier articles do not even list a source such as Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfeld, Cleopatra, Walter Wanger, Rex Harrison, and James Rolfe. --Cs california (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources provided are reliable. Please review WP:DOB and WP:BLP overall. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cs california: As @Ronz: mentioned, none of the sources are reliable. MyHeritage, along with a tweet, is not a reliable source. In fact, MyHeritage information can simply be edited if you claim the panel with a paid account. This is probable since Tariq owns a paid MyHeritage account which was last updated Apr 16 2017, coincidently shortly before the original date of birth source was added to this Wiki. I'd say it's justified to require a verifiable source for the date of birth. It shouldn't be too hard with such a public figure, but here we are. Ahatala1337 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ahatala1337: Then why don't you just edit it and change the DOB with a source instead of respond to 2 year old comments--Cs california (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page include his birth name?

@Cs california: You've once again added his birth date with unreliable sources and no edit summary. --Hipal (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: Do you contend that his birth date is wrong despite him tweeting it out? While allowing other fields in the infobox filled unsourced? Where is the WP:BLP sources for him being born in detrioit? Being a Satirist, Internet radio host, or Social commentator? How is The Art of Mackin a notable work when there is no reference and no wikipedia page? --Cs california (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The tweet was rejected as a reference the previous time you used it. Once I saw that in the editing history, I thought it best to remove it again, at least until we have the required consensus to include it.

I would think that the tweet is ok for the day and month. I don't see how it verifies the year.

As for your other concerns with the infobox, I agree that they need to be looked into. A separate discussion section would be a good idea. --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section

This is about this edit.

Generally speaking controversy sections are a bad idea, especially in a WP:BLP. In this case, phrases like "proved controversial" are also editorializing, even if they are pretty hard to argue with. There are also sourcing issues here.

The RT article is pretty borderline and gossipy and is about a handful of tweets about single incident. His claims were not accurately reflected by the article, either. The details don't matter, but, as strange as his claims were, they would need to be explained and summarized accurately, and according to more reliable sources.

The Root is generally reliable, but this was an opinion piece specifically using Nasheed's tweets for a specific purpose. While the article did say he was trolling, it's not appropriate to include that in a BLP without a lot more context, and this one source simply doesn't justify this level of detail. Again, at a bare minimum, this would need to be clearly attributed to Jason A. Johnson of The Root, instead of WP:WEASEL wording, but I do not think that's appropriate without much stronger sources.

This is NOT to say that these issues of homophobia, conspiracy theories, etc. cannot ever be included in the article, they will just need to be handled more carefully. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Root is generally reliable..." Is this a joke? No, it is not a reliable source. No one that can rub two brain cells together considers that site reliable for news. It is 100% ultra-biased left-leaning opinion pieces and it makes no qualms about that. One could make the claim that The Root had a veneer of legitimate journalism when it was still owned by Henry Louis Gates, but it's been tabloid trash since Gates sold the site. It is far from credible due to its lax standards of editorial oversight and it routinely misrepresents news events due to this left-leaning editorialization. 98.117.86.164 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The general consensus is that it's reliable, especially for uncontentious claims. Probably best not to use in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally, as someone who's dealt with this d*$&#bag in the past, his tweets alone should provide quality evidence (as examples of his behavior). I mean, of course, third party sources would also be required, but I don't see why using his own tweets as sources would be a problem as that's the thing being talked about. Just my $0.02. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Originally put in the lead section to give a overview of the person rather then its own section as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section to give prominent controversies. I disagree that RT is gossipy, it provided a concise overview of the situation with evidence, hence describing the controversy of the situation as stated and is a strong source. I am not sure of your criticism of The Root source, you say there is too much detail yet too little context? Seems contradictory. In any case, The Root is probably one of the most tame sources you will find describing criticism of the subject. FeWorld (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Both sources seem extremely poor for BLP info. I don't think they should be used. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain further, the RT source seems particularly strong to me. It presents the information from a neutral point of view, gives context of the situation and context of the person. FeWorld (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How would you describe the context of the situation and person given in RT? --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The article describes the situation in the same manner as the articles listed below. The substantial meat of the article focuses on the online reaction to the situation, as Nasheed is a internet personality this is his forte. His background is described and even follow ups to his tweets are given after others have criticised him. As an internet personality reporting of his social media posts will be especially relevant. The article provides a balance insight into his views. It is strong, from a respected source, and probably stronger then the majority of the sources in the current article. FeWorld (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

His background is not described, it's barely mentioned. You say it's a strong, respected source, but this is what's being disputed. RT.com is not particularly well-respected, and the article lacks a named author, or any analysis or research beyond what anyone could find browsing twitter. This is a weak source in context. As it relates to Nasheed, the incident was a WP:FART, and without more substantial coverage, it is unlikely this specific incident belongs. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• There are dozens of substantial sources on this incident from a wide range of outlets (BBC, Associated Press, Time, etc.). There's a huge amount of nuance to unpack, but the RT article doesn't bother. After the first three short paragraphs which could've been pulled from anywhere, the RT source is mostly just... tweets. It compiles random people's unsubstantiated musings with little surrounding context or fact-checking or anything of the sort. That's churnalism, and it doesn't even have a byline. RT (TV network)'s reliability is also questionable for entirely different reasons, as well.

As weak as the source is, the removed edit was also an inaccurate summary of it. Nasheed was not necessarily saying that Native Americans "were trying to" whatever... He was saying that the media was spinning it a certain way as propaganda. He was not saying that all Native Americans are white supremacists, he was saying that many white supremacists pretend to be Native American, which is indisputably correct (Asa Earl Carter is the easy example) but also irrelevant. Accusing two kids who were just going about their own business of this is completely vile, but the edit did not really explain that. Nasheed was pushing a reprehensible and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, but it's a completely different unsubstantiated conspiracy theory than what the edit described. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify. None of these other, better sources mention Nasheed, nor does that seem likely. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it churnalism. A bunch of tweets strung together. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?

I know this may come off as somewhat inflammatory, but it barely talks about the man. It mentions some things he's done, a minor controversy and that's it. Next to nothing about what he's mostly famous for or his political beliefs. It almost reads as if the article intentionally has massive omissions to paint Nasheed in a better light. I am not saying or attempting to imply there is any suspect or shady editing going on, but if you read this article without already knowing about Tariq, you'd get the completely wrong impression of who he is. I understand a lack of sources is a problem, but surely we can do better than this?

I mean, it's mentioned he's a "conspiracy theorist" but that's never elaborated upon in the article. He's listed as a "Social commentator" and "Media personality", but most of what is discussed are his films. It's mentioned he was barred for entering the UK because he's "not conducive to the public good" with no context as to why. How is any of this acceptable? 109.78.160.205 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It's called WP:RS. If it can be cited in a reliable third-party source, then it should be added. Not until then. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several controversies that should be added, including the inflammatory videos he links on his Twitter and his self described habit of "race baiting" Dimitri Isov9 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

There is a substantial amount of source material about antisemitic and homophobic behavior and comments from Mr. Nasheed. This behavior is one of the main drivers behind his notability. Due to this, the page should add a section about homophobic and antisemitic remarks. 96.255.171.215 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If Wikipedia has to include it in Louis Farrakhan’s page then why not Nasheeds? DrewfromLA310 (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that Mr Nasheed is an Anti-Vaxxer DrewfromLA310 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

This article is extremely biased and using the term "conspiracy theorist" is untrue and borderline defamatory. It appears the people who edited this page clearly has a personal vendetta against Tariq Nasheed, and they appear to have come up with ways to be as slanderous as possible. If this is what wikipedia is reduced to, then stop pretending to be objective. The bed wench section was also filled with lies as well. Othello702 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed the "conspiracy theorist" label as I feel it would be better to have consensus on it among editors. However, below in this Talk page is more than enough evidence to warrant the label with Nasheed. The label was made in good faith and with reliable sources. However, I am unsure if the other editors would accept direct quotes from Nasheed as they would, in my view, irrefutably demonstrate his penchant for conspiracy theories. Notably, Nasheed is now defending celebrities embroiled in controversy regarding their own alleged anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Socraticlove (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the previous edits on the use of the "bed wench" term, Nasheed has apparently used it to refer to the actress Jodie Turner-Smith. Source: https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1209898139345276928

It's true Nasheed did not specifically state Michelle Williams was a "bed wench," which was not what I intended to suggest, though he has referred to her interracial relationship as "toxic swirling." Source: https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1071167678302191617?lang=en

Nonetheless, both Ms. Turner-Smith and Ms. Williams were labeled as "bed wenches" on social media to the point that articles were written about it from prominent sources. Even though Nasheed did not specifically call Ms. Williams a "bed wench," my intent was to show how harmful this meme disseminated by Nasheed is. It was removed from the article as another editor correctly determined it to be editorializing. To be clear, it appears Nasheed has referred to Ms. Turner-Smith and not Ms. Williams as a "bed wench," though he appears to have had an issue with both of their present or previous interracial relationships. Socraticlove (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The bad faith arguments here proves implicit bias and personal qualms with Tariq Nasheed, and it reduces the integrity of Wikipedia. The "editors' here are making "guilty by association" accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othello702 (talk • contribs)

On the lede of this article

I'll be honest: I did something I should not have done and used a WP:SLEEPER to change the lede, as I would rather not be political on this account, which has too much of my personal information on it. Obviously, that was a dumb and untrustworthy thing to do and I'll probably face consequences over that. The user page of my second account discloses my primary account, but that was made when I was younger. I deeply apologize for my misconduct.

On the issue at hand, it seems as if this bio doesn't take a WP:NPOV approach to the topic. I am not arguing what I think of the subject, but saying "pickup artist" without a citation as well as conspiracy theorist with poor substantiation in the cited articles is not neutral. Please let me know what you think. Buffaboy ^talk 22:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I like your good-faith effort here. I accepted your edit. I think the previous claims were well-cited and factual, but there needs to be a consensus on a living person. Socraticlove (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the comments below about his numerous conspiracy theories and let me know if you still believe he does not quality as one. I believe he does and the evidence is overwhelming. Still, I agree there should be some consensus. Socraticlove (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed "conspiracy theorist" from the lede. Please incorporate relevant content into the article body first. If enough weight is due, then some summarizing mention might be due in the lede. Please be very careful with how Wikipedia's voice is used as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

This suggestion is for the continuation of the section entitled “Use of term “bed wench”

Nasheed’s view on black women who date interracially is especially problematic and a contradiction as his wife is bi-racial and his mother in law is a white former police officer. In fact Nasheed has encouraged black men to seek out bi-racial women for marriage in places such as Brazil, for example and has famously endorsed seeking bi-racial women especially with white mother’s as he considers this combination renders a bi-racial women less of a “hood-rat”, a term he reserves for most dark skinned black women. 2001:861:3D81:7020:D01E:2096:46A5:9D40 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please see WP:OR, MOS:OPED, WP:BLP. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No section on his Anti-Semitic, Racist, Homophobic, or Anti-Vaxxer comments?

He has repeatedly made ridiculous Anti-Semitic statements. He defended the disgusting DeSean Jackson posts saying “there was nothing bigoted about what he said”. He also pushes an Anti-Vax agenda, Saying on twitter that Vaccines cause Autism without any facts to back that up. Not to mention his “Anti-Moist” T-Shirts that are straight up Homophobic, Moist is slang for a feminine man. So hes admitting to being against men who don’t act a way that is perceived as heterosexual. Wikipedia needs to add these ridiculous statements. Since you did that to Farrakhan, Khalid Muhammad, and Malik Zulu Shabazz. DrewfromLA310 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

He has promoted numerous conspiracy theories, as you point out. Let me list them:

1. Bill Gates and global elites are conspiring to sicken and potentially kill people with vaccines and make profits off of them. Source: https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1253745341481943040?lang=en

2. Chemtrails are being used to sicken populations, presumably by global elites. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7movqPBII&feature=emb_title

3. He also believes there is a global system of white supremacy in place that includes the subjugation of China, now recognized as a dominant superpower. He has shamefully claimed white supremacists are the smartest people in the world. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQri_AwSd60

4. He has asserted on his YouTube channel that blacks are not affected by the coronavirus like the "dominant society," when we now know all racial groups are seriously affected. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-CKlcknYQ0

5. Relatedly, he asserts hospitals are killing blacks and advises blacks to avoid them. He even admits he is wearing the "tinfoil kufi." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHVzqeOeWKs&feature=youtu.be

6. He believes law enforcement played a role in the murder or coverup of the murder of rapper Nipsey Hussle. Source: https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1113284940559314945?lang=en

7. He has claimed that white supremacists linked with law enforcement are responsible for many of the homicides in Chicago. Sources: https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1167500825138085888 And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41d2HsmS2UM

It was claimed before that the previous sources did not substantiate the claim that he is a conspiracy theorist, but the above is, in my sincere view, more than enough evidence. Socraticlove (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hos Twitter is full of racist comments and he is a verified user that should be enough Cowsthatfloat (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This kind of thing needs reliable sources, which must also be independent sources. While it's understandable to want to look at his social media, using this to support a characterization is a form of original research. In this case, at least two sources link him to conspiracy theories as defining traits in broad terms, so I have restored that content. Any commentary about a specific conspiracy theory, or about his bigotry, will need to be directly supported by sources and evaluated for due weight. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Besides the two sources I originally provided (New York Times and Village Voice) to correctly back up the claim, these are clear examples. In any case, because there is a concern about undue weight, I am OK with the article as is. Socraticlove (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe retitle 'Use of term "bed wench"' to "Views", and make it broader to include the conspiracies, etc. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The feedback on this thread has been very useful. I am not trying to take charge by any means, and I understand the Wikipedia project is not about citizen journalism. Nonetheless, this could be a useful repository for putting the wealth of information out there in proper context. Here is yet another source referencing "a web of conspiracy" in Nasheed's documentaries: "Through very real examples of black history and achievements were included, these scholars and historians also manage to weave a web of conspiracy, which makes black women into pathological figures who seek to harm the black man through their choices to obtain a degree and good jobs and homes." Source: https://madamenoire.com/252282/when-a-misogynist-becomes-a-historian-are-we-so-starved-for-positive-images-of-our-history-that-we-dont-care-who-delivers-them/ Also addressed in this article is alleged homophobia.

Relatedly, Nasheed in a similar fashion asserts that there is a "homosexual agenda," and he sees a sandwich as proof of this: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/06/tariq-nasheed-lgbt-sandwich-marks-spencers-twitter-pick-up-artist/

Again, it may seem to the casual reader that this is picking on him, but a modest amount of scrutiny of his statements and work will show that he views the world as a war against hidden, powerful forces. Some of these forces manifest in the form of a sandwich. Yes, a sandwich.

That's two sources on alleged homophobia. I checked PinkNews and it seems reputable within the LGBT community. So anyone who complains about homophobia not being mentioned can do some homework. Socraticlove (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source that references conspiracy theories in a Nasheed documentary: "In Tariq Nasheed’s third installment of 'Hidden Colors,' there are disturbing graphics, educational interviews and new presentations of familiar, rumored conspiracy theories, which in the words of Arsenio Hall, will make you go 'hmmmm ….'” Source: http://ourweekly.com/news/2014/jul/31/hidden-colors-3/ Socraticlove (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source reporting Nasheed's support for Farrakhan and the conspiracy theory that Bill Gates and others (including Dr. Fauci) are conspiring to vaccinate the planet to reduce the world's population. Source: https://eurweb.com/2020/07/05/farrakhan-warns-africa-not-to-take-coronavirus-vaccine-claims-it-will-depopulate-the-earth/ Here is the archived source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200708150938/https://eurweb.com/2020/07/05/farrakhan-warns-africa-not-to-take-coronavirus-vaccine-claims-it-will-depopulate-the-earth/

The Daily Caller also covered this: https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/04/louis-farrakhan-fauci-bill-gates-vaccine-coronavirus/ Socraticlove (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Here Nasheed is linked to a Jussie Smollett, Kamala Harris, and LGBT conspiracy theory disseminated online. Source: https://www.inquisitr.com/5311793/jussie-smollett-kamala-harris-conspiracy-theory/

Here Nasheed is linked to a Chris Brown conspiracy theory. Source: https://www.complex.com/life/2016/08/chris-brown-conspiracy-theories-arrest Socraticlove (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Here Nasheed in a similar fashion is linked to the spread of false information online about an alleged conspiracy involving white supremacists and a shooting in Atlanta. This is apparently a highly respected source, and this story seems to dovetail with the New York Times article cited in a previous edit. While it may be true that white supremacists were involved in the shooting, since the suspect is unknown, the police were apparently misquoted. Source: https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/06/fact-check-no-evidence-white-supremacist-shot-7-black-people-in-atlanta-driveby.html

Here is a refresher so that those putting these puzzle pieces together are able to see the obvious pattern. Once again, here is the NYT source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/wild-speculation-isnt-worth-much-a-theory-however.html Socraticlove (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, regarding the shooting noted above in Atlanta's Edgewood community, I'll concede that that one is supicious given that the shooter was in a pickup truck. Still, the police should not be misquoted in the way that they were. Here though is a patently false conspiracy theory about an alleged white supremacist running over protesters in Seattle spread online by the #FirstThem organization affiliated with Nasheed. The driver is apparently an African immigrant. Source: https://mynorthwest.com/2000011/rantz-seattle-chop-protesters-white-supremacist-conspiracies/ Socraticlove (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to say how deep this rabbit hole runs, since the websites linked to Nasheed are apparently anonymous. Here is evidence that Nasheed founded #FirstThem. This leads to plenty of well-sourced information about his well-publicized controversial positions on Bill Cosby and R. Kelly. Source: https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/columns/firstthem-finds-itself-the-target-of-finger-pointing/article_61af199e-32f9-548f-b25a-d94415db1e49.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socraticlove (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I support a Criticism/Controversy section MiXT4PE (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as unusable sources are being used as evidence, this is going nowhere. Strikeout all clearly unreliable sources, and indicate if there are any left. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

His misogynistic diatribe disguised as wokeness comments about black women who date outside of their race was criticized in Ebony: [1] back in 2013- not sure if this would suffice.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Any idea who the author is? She appears to be a freelancer, and the Ebony article an opinion piece. I'm not sure how much weight it deserves.

She doesn't say much about Nasheed. What content are you proposing? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Are we, uh, gonna do anything we listed here? These sound like good changes. Looks like we've got sources, an objective... AdoTang (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Nasheed’s views, and the views of black men like him, are seldom challenged.

Black women frequently make a point of specifically not dating interracially, so they’re either indifferent to what he has to say or even supportive of it. This feeds back to the concept/social movement of “black love” & black women wanting more respect from black men. So when you have the majority of black women being concerned with the aforementioned issues, it’s no wonder his (Nasheed’s) views aren’t all that controversial. I am specifically talking about his views on interracial dating. He has never been “cancelled” or had strong rebuttals from people of note.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:941:99C6:431A:F2C4 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Not controversial"? The dude thinks black people are immune to a fucking pandemic! AdoTang (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This article serves as red meat for those who (possibly correctly?) allege a pronounced left-wing bias amongst Wikipedia editors

Tariq Nasheed is a black nationalist and virulent racist. He is one of the most aggressively racist people posting on any social media platform. I can provide almost unlimited examples of his extreme and violent racism upon request but this is not required since anyone taking an interest in this page is already aware of this. The fact that his page makes no mention of this and is protected, brings Wikipedia into disrepute. If you systematically view the pages of a large number of people involved in the 'culture war', you will see a a level of bias that would be comical if you didn't care at all about this project. Any conservative blowhard who has ever made any vaguely questionable comment is attacked relentlessly in the article relating to them. Racists and extremists of the political left are given a pass and this is not escaping justified criticism. This page requires heavy modification. An extensive 'Controversies' section is required, detailing the countless examples of horrific behaviour by Tariq Nasheed. This man is not just a film producer etc. He is comparable to any senior figure in the KKK. Senior Wikipedia Editors consciously massage the reputation of this man for political purposes. This IS NOT an oversight. It is a conscious political decision made by cowardly or downright evil authorities. This and many, MANY examples like it undermine the trust in this project. For shame.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.207.121 (talk • contribs)

find a reliable source that calls him this and then it will change. TAXIDICAE💰 00:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Heres your source, I pasted it here before but it seems to be removed. https://www.rt.com/usa/522130-hotel-clerc-breakdown-race/ 125.238.254.13 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

nvm just saw the history, you commented "This isn'ta forum and rt is trash" . oh really? theres wikipedia rules specfically saying "hurr durr rt is trash, you cant use it" at least try to hide your bias, you're politically polarised. Whatshisnamee (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of this stuff is barking about, but I will take a guess it's because he spends all his time on twitter race baiting (as his twitter handle says) and of course people lap it up, and he just signal boosted himself with a particularly odious video.

However this is not the same as any of his comments actually being notable, or relevant, enough to be biographical as we are reliant on secondary sources.

I have no idea how this becomes about "left wing" bias. Tariq is a functional nobody with extremely limited coverage. Koncorde (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Whatshisnamee: yep, there was a decision that "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." See WP:RSP Doug Weller talk 14:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

but how is it "propaganda and disinformation" when the article is quite literally true?? oh well. we got some new news articles anyway https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/04/distraught-gay-employee-breakdown-customer-hurls-slurs-activist-mocked/ https://www.dailydot.com/irl/black-customer-films-mentally-ill-white-hotel-clerk-having-meltdown/ https://www.newsweek.com/gofundme-harassed-holiday-inn-employee-recorded-guest-garners-35k-less-24-hours-1586771 the incident definitely needs to be expanded (ie, the guy calling him a faggot. (takin from the lgbtq nation link: "“What the guy recording DIDN’T record was him calling me a FAGGOT for ‘taking his money’ which is my job. as well as threatening my job security. While that depiction is correct, because I am a giant homosexual, that was that. I was done.”)Whatshisnamee (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Whatshisnamee: This article is a BLP concerning Tariq Nasheed. According to these articles, Nasheed was not a participant in this incident; he shared the video with his own framing and opinion. Therefore, we should only cover what reliable sources say regarding his involvement by posting the video. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Buffaboy ^talk 23:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

And we cannot use Russia Today, full stop. This being a BLP should perhaps make that two full stops. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really taking sides here, but how is Newsweek not a reliable source? Both it and LGBTQ Nation have a "Mostly Factual" rating from Media Bias/Fact Check. –Nahald (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Nahald It's not just about reliability, it's about the weight being put on something that's barely being reported and the fact that the OP attempted to include an accusation that Nasheed is a "black supremacist" without a single source supporting said claims. Neither Newsweek or LGBTQNation say anything of the sort. TAXIDICAE💰 18:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

you both clearly know you can edit this into his article and you choose not too. you're both disgusting. this is why alot of people are now losing trust in Wikipedia.Whatshisnamee (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You have already received a warning about good faith, don't be WP:UNCIVIL too.--Pokelova (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thats not fair, when it comes to BLP wikipedia does a very fair job even if the BLP policy does at first glance appear draconian. It applies equally to the best person in the world (assuming they have a wikipedia page) and the absolute worst person in the world (who almost certainly has a wikipedia page). I’d also note that Tariq Nasheed is not generally considered to be left wing. His opinions on gender roles and the position of women in society for example is *very* traditional. OP appears to have gone off half cocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have restored the previous sourced version despite an apparent attempt by several editors to add unsourced negative content to the lead. As a reminder to all, please read WP:BLP and get consensus here before reinstating any controversial edits. Thanks. TAXIDICAE💰 19:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The cited NYT article refers to him as a "conspiracy buff", at the very least that should be mentioned. I don't like how sanitized this article is becoming, it's like somebody is actively attempting to whitewash his controversial nature. 51.37.97.190 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

conspiracy buff does not equate to conspiracy theorist. YODADICAE👽 20:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Black Supremacy

In keeping fairness to how easily many conservative famous people get labelled as White Supremacist, Tariq's fringe conspiracy documentaries in particular fall in line with the beliefs of Black Supremacist cults like Nuwaubianism (even SPLC designates as a Black Supremacist hate group). He has promoted Black Supremacist staple beliefs such as black people being the basis of most ancient civilisations, Jesus being black. Or at least mention that the beliefs state in his documentaries originate in Black Supremacy pseudo-history

Additional controversy

Tariq is getting huge backlash and has made the news again for a video he uploaded where a mentally ill man was harassed and it insinuated (falsely) a hate crime or racism had occurred.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.160 (talk • contribs)

If you can find a reliable source supporting your claims then it can be added in. Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of living people, must be neutral and can only include information that is neutral, verifiable, and fact-based. --Buffaboy ^talk 22:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Once more, we need reliable sources - multiple, reporting this. Also note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so in the absence of sources, accusing someone of "black supremacy" is a BLP violation. TAXIDICAE💰 11:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

The following section needs to be deleted because there are no reliable third-party sources that can back the claim that "Egyptian Musk" was on the Billboard R&B Albums charts at any time in 2018 or for any other year for that matter.

Another edit to consider is to simply replace the section with: "Nasheed is the lead singer of the R&B musical group Mink Slide."

"Music career

Nasheed is the lead singer of the R&B musical group Mink Slide.[14] Mink Slide's first album, Egyptian Musk, debuted at #12 on Billboard R&B Albums charts in 2018" GooblinGoblin (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)"

 Not done: I added a reference instead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Tariq just released a new movie called Buckbreaking which was released last week. Need to get that added into his films. Hotep Incarri (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

he literally says on his social media he released it, why the hell do we need a third party source for something the dude is promoting himself?? Wtf.

Historical revisionism

His new documentary "buck breaking" refers to a practice for which there are no historical sources or other evidence. Should this be commented on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.134.190.61 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Not unless you can provide a reliable independent source discussing it.--Pokelova (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Listing of films and books, not much else

I am concerned that this article is simply a means of promotion for Nasheed's films, and to a much lesser extent his books. From skimming the AfDs, this talk page, and the article history, it looks like anything more is difficult to find BLP-quality sources for, especially with any substantial encyclopedic context. Without such sources, there's not much we can do. --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, theres good coverage of the whole bed wench thing but it seems that most of what Mr Nasheed does simply isn’t important enough to merit mention in the respectable press. Without the coverage from that turn of speech he probably wouldn't be GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is effectively impossible to edit due to the lack of mainstream coverage on Nasheed combined with hawkish editors reverting any attempt at expansion. At this point I have to argue he doesn't even deserve an article but rather a redirect to Hidden Colors, the only truly notable thing he's done. 64.43.140.134 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Feb'21 AfD was uncontested, so a redirect seems questionable. --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about that as well, but every addition is always met with "there's no sources". If there's such an overwhelming lack of sources to cite from about almost any aspect of Nasheed himself besides the "bed wench" incident and Hidden Colors, doesn't that indicate a serious notability problem? One of the core pillars of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedic collection of information, something this article fails to be. If you knew nothing about Nasheed, could you gather anything meaningful about him other than being a director from Detroit? There isn't even a biography section on this biographic article. He apparently has a music career, couldn't there be more about that? Or any kind of explanation what the on Hidden Colors films are and how he makes them? This article has been very lacking for a long time, I'm surprised it's managed to survive for this long. 64.43.140.134 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This article requires a "Controversies" section

There are several controversies that should be added, including the inflammatory videos he links on his Twitter and his self described habit of "race baiting." As it stands now, this is one of the most misinformed Wikipedia entries I have seen to date. Dimitri Isov9 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Controversies" sections should be avoided per WP:CRITS and WP:BLPBALANCE.

What reliable, independent sources can you provide that are of high-quality as required per WP:BLP? --Hipal (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversy? Where? Which publications? A few questionable women complaining about him on twitter? As much as it may pain some folks here, Nasheed’s work has been largely well-received. He has never faced substantial criticism other than his use of the term “bed wench”(despite his words being fully in-line with concepts of Black Love and Black Liberation). And even then that was pretty minor. His anti-racism work is regarded as important and impactful in the way it enlightens and educates the Black community. If you don’t like it, just ignore it. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:4C89:D1B3:4B31:CC18 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed is conspiracy theorist and a bigot who constantly gets flak for his radical and wacky views. His latest film "Buckbreaking" talks about a practice that never existed, and has been debunked and was thoroughly ridiculed. His use of "bed wench" was in a derrogatory manner and the whole incident blew on his face, like most of the things he says and do. I don't know how much the user above got paid to say all that, but Tariq is a Alex Jones-tier laughing stock and mostly irrelevant, that being the reason his controversies aren't well covered by mainstream media. -2804:214:8606:4F5C:1:0:AC98:711A (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(I think you meant to reply to the post above you, not the OP?) Not that I disagree, it doesn't take long reading through his Twitter to see he uses bad faith racial justice arguments to push very anti-LGBT rhetoric e.g. "the white LGBT community has been on a campaign to target Black heterosexuality" , but these claims need to be cited if they're to be addressed here. That's the #1 problem hindering this article; there's a serious lack of mainstream discussion of Tariq. The NYT does refer to him as a conspiracy buff but that's the extent of it. 78.152.233.71 (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

sneed

what is this sneed thing? is it his last name?

K-Flex albums

Why was this deleted from the article? --Hipal (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In 1999, Nasheed released his debut album under the moniker K-Flex Was Yo Ass; a follow-up album The Art Of Mackin' was released in 2002.

References

There are several verified, reputable sources for the Mink Slide material. Where is that?Thrillydee (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of term "bed wench"

Why was the following removed from the article? --Hipal (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nasheed has referred to black women who date interracially as "bed wenches" on social media. In using this term, which historically was used to disparage black women who were raped by their masters during slavery, he has revived and popularized its use. However his use of the term has been criticized because a black woman who chooses to have relationships and consensual sex outside of her race is not included within the traditional definition of the term. He has also coined the term “Negro bed wench mentality” which he has expanded upon in great detail on his podcast.

References

Looking at the prior discussions: The author of the Ebony ref is Shafiqah Hudson. It appears to be an opinion piece written by a free lance author. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ebony piece is not marked as opinion, a journalist being freelance does not detract from their reliability, and Ebony is a WP:RS. I wouldn’t be opposed to a rewrite using just that source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Colorwebmag.com is a blog. As such, I don't believe it should be used at all in this BLP article.

RollingOut is missing basic information about themselves, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#Rolling_Out suggests is should not be considered reliable.

Unless better refs can be found, this section should remain out. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The piece from The Root (magazine) mentions it as a significant aspect of his professional identity "Tariq Nasheed, the heralded filmmaker of the semifactual Hidden Colors film series, who wields his Twitter account like a medieval mace to smash white supremacy, critical thinkers, and any “bed wench” who dares to take ownership of her vagina and not subject it to the will of ashy niggas who refer to her as a “queen,” has announced his new career as an R&B singer from 1989."[2] so some mention is WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Tariq is a notable figure, but much of what is notable about him has not recieved substantial coverage in reliable sources, which leaves us in a bind. I agree with HEB that a rewrite of the section should be added based on the ebony source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a mention in a Refinery29 article "He has weaponized terms like “bed wench” (which referred to enslaved Black women who were raped by white enslavers) against modern-day Black women who are in relationships with non-Black men."[3] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a reputable source?Thrillydee (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Which source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Hipal: do you still object to the inclusion of a bed wench section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm extremely busy and don't have time to figure out what's being proposed and what's the consensus on proposed references.

Do you think all the refs are of BLP-quality and the content meets all policies? --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I will be adding a section to the article, I’m sorry you’re too busy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why the additional context I provided to this section of the article was removed? The additional information about the bed wench term was generally accurate, so I don’t know why it was removed. Pocketrocker (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To start, you removed three citations from the section. --Hipal (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will remember to add additional citations if I provide additional context to the sections Pocketrocker (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

—Hipal , Why were my additional citations removed? Also one of the statements that you have allowed to remain in this section, does not match the actual citation, so it is inaccurate. Is there are reason for allowing that? Pocketrocker (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you identify the potentially problematic citation?

I reverted the changes because they changed the focus of the section away from the subject of this article, as I pointed out in my edit summary.

I don't believe the new reference you used is reliable, and how it was used probably violates WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Your notes stated that the citations took focus away from the subject. Doesn’t this entire bed wench section take away from the accomplishments of the subject? There are many other noteworthy things the subject is known for, and based on this talk page, much of that has been omitted. To claim the subject is “known for using the term bed wench” , based on one obscure article, would be somewhat inaccurate and deflective, correct? Also, why is a false quote being allowed in this section, that does not reflect the citation? Pocketrocker (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.

This article has a long history of problematic editing. It would be best for new editors to avoid this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I made the correction that you were uncertain of. And I totally agree, looking at the talk section here, we can see these editors have been very problematic as far as this article. But the problem seems to be the same 2 editors who appear to be gatekeepers for this article. Should we “avoid” bringing truthful context to an article because certain misinformation has made it problematic? Why is there such a concerted effort for certain editors to frame this article a certain way? Pocketrocker (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what you are talking about.

I suggest making edit requests, clearly identifying what changes you want made and what references support those changes. --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Pocketrocker was another sock (the same person as Thrillydee). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has published material using numerous opinion pieces on the supposed transphobia of JK Rowling, yet getting even the most mild-mannered criticism inserted here dealing with Nasheed’s ‘opinions’ of certain black women has been a constant struggle. Just… Woeful. 86.159.215.45 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

High-quality references are required per WP:BLP. --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Coverage question

I just did a simple google search, and there seems to be an endless stream of media articles and stories mentioning Tariq. And these are pretty reputable media outlets, like the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, Fox, Washing Post, LA Times, and the list goes on. So to say there are not any reliable sources, it sounds strange. It seems people here really saying there are not enough reliable sources that has NEGATIVE coverage of him. Because thats what it seems like some people here are looking for.Thrillydee (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia.

As an editor here, you are expected to work collaboratively with others and assume good faith.

Can you point out some of the very best potential references you have found? --Hipal (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of some reputable media publications that mention Tariq Nasheed. There are many other links but this list gives a general example of the coverage on him and his work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/slavery-black-immigrants-ados.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/books/review/misbehavin.html

https://nypost.com/2021/04/29/sen-tim-scott-attacked-as-uncle-tim-on-twitter-after-gop-rebuttal/

https://www.bet.com/article/1w70xj/inside-tariq-nahseed-s-hidden-colors-3

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-black-victim-20170330-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/10/father-who-called-black-man-his-building-explains-his-actions-apologizes/

https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-howard-stern-addresses-blackface-insane-20200615-frvuhxk7p5bm5eqdxq4343ipuy-story.html

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/entertainment/2021/09/02/local-filmmaker-to-develop-new-museum-uncovering-untold-black-history

https://www.kalb.com/2020/06/29/full-interview-los-angeles-man-explains-why-helped-bail-a-local-man-fighting-with-police/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/2019/01/03/trending-least-now-we-know-where-comics-keep-their-jokes/

https://time.com/4860693/twitter-reaction-ann-coulter-delta/

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-olympics-rio-lochte-reaction-idUKKCN10U1PO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/07/haute-couture-blackface-gucci-apologizes-pulls-racist-sweater/

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-detroit-john-boyega-will-poulter-20170803-story.html

Thrillydee (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Making a list based upon mere mention is not very helpful. Not providing at least the title in each case is unhelpful. Pick one, or a few and tell us how they are BLP-quality references that we should be using. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for my confusion. What is the difference between the links I provided and some of the other “source” links that other users have provided for this article? Almost all the links I provided mentions the subject in a neutral manner. But it seems the links that are already allowed to be used as source material, have a particular biased angle. Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to approach posting information about individuals in a neutral, non-biased manner? Thrillydee (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality applies to our use of the sources (see WP:NPOV), it does not apply to the sources themselves (see WP:V and WP:BLP). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If an editor uses biased source references while ignoring or even omitting neutral source references, doesn’t that constitute bias on behalf of the Wikipedia editor? Thrillydee (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

All sources are biased, what matters for us is reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliability is absolutely correct. Thats why posting unreliable "source links" from non-reputable sites like Refinery29, that has opinion pieces, with information about the subject that is not only unreliable, much of their information is flat out incorrect. And thats the reason why we must abide by wikipedia's guidelines and not vandalize the page with unreliable opinion pieces, while claiming they are sources.Thrillydee (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please check any potential references against WP:RSP at a minimum. WP:RSN should be checked as well for any in question. --Hipal (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Refinery29 is both reputable and reliable. As far as I can tell the only person trying to add an unreliable opinion piece is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Refinery29 not reliable nor reputable especially if the person they are writing their opinion pieces about(and many other people) has openly criticized the racism from their parent company Vice Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrillydee (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to question the reliability of the source based on a conflict of interest the place to do that is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The extreme lengths some editors are going through to not have anything negative on this article is honestly incredible. I have never seen citations put to this level of standards before, someone earlier didn't want to cite the New York Times for calling Nasheed a conspiracy nut because of the exact wording that was used. Do you think the article's protection should be increased? It's had problems with people trying to obscure facts about Nasheed ever since it was first written, for example the person who started this topic was just banned for sockpuppeting. 51.37.71.67 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please identify the specific references you want to use, and the specific changes you want made to the article based upon those references. If you want quicker response, do so in the form of an WP:Edit request. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Striking through edits by confirmed sock. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The bed wench debacle.

Nasheed currently has nearly 300k followers on Twitter and is uninhibited in his use of the term “bed wench” when referring to *all* black women who date interracially (albeit those with white men). I say his views are widely held in the black community and the criticism here is WP:UNDUE. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:C5F1:6D5D:7F0B:35F (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In part I agree, there is definitely a culture of not speaking out against people like Tariq Nasheed.--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Neurodivergent Bullying

Why don't we have anything about the widespread condemnation this guy got for bullying a neurodivergent Holiday Inn employee? He got widespread condemnation for it at the time. It seems to me that widespread observation for (evidently purposeful) ableist behavior is noteworthy and speaks volumes to his character. [4]https://www.newsweek.com/gofundme-harassed-holiday-inn-employee-recorded-guest-garners-35k-less-24-hours-1586771 George Mucus (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not enough for the condemnation to be widespread according to editors, it needs to be supported as significant per sources. Newsweek might be usable in combination with better sources, or it might not, as it's borderline itself per Wikipedia:NEWSWEEK.

Our goal also isn't just to list everything which has happened, it is to provide context for events which are encyclopedically significant. This context is going to be a lot harder to explain, since the GoFundMe was started by Jeremy Hambly, AKA "TheQuartering", (his work is itself controversial, to put it mildly[5][6][7]). If reliable sources explain any of this, and also indicate why it is encyclopedically significant, then let's see what those sources say and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ew. Yeah, The Quartering is himself kind of a bully and has been more or less excluded from every reputable YouTube circle. Still, I do remember there being a lot of coverage of this at the time, and disability advocates had a lot to say on the matter. [8]https://twitter.com/BadCrippIe/status/1386613883515723776 I know that social media is also meant to be avoided but the only stories I can find about it now are on conservative slanted blogs (eg, [9]https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2021/04/26/racist-garbage-person-tariq-nasheed-is-getting-absolutely-torched-for-rejoicing-in-the-nervous-breakdown-of-a-white-hotel-employee/ ). There are some reddit threads that I've found (eg, [10]https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/mz7ezl/whats_going_on_with_tariq_nasheed_posting_a_video/ ) but I'm not sure that's acceptable either. Still, to me it seems that there's a sufficient corpus of evidence to warrant its mention. George Mucus (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think those are usable. You are correct that social media is rarely usable, and for good reason. One way to think about it is that social media figures like Nasheed (and Hambly) treat controversy as a commercial product. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping them sell their products, we need reliable and independent sources so we can explain to readers why this is important. Good sources are not optional. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. Sad that there's a dearth of good, objective reporting about it. I suppose he does peddle in controversy, though. George Mucus (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the following editors as socks of Fijiwahwah

Dresmond762, Rougeedoogee and Veryoky. Let me know if similar ones appear. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What I find remarkable about this is how they don't want to 'own' Nasheed's views on interracial relationships between Black women and other races. Not only is it reliable sourced, it's not even remotely contentious or defamatory. He wears it like a badge of honour for all to see.--SinoDevonian (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Lucabien blocked. --Hipal (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What's Going On With Refinery29?

As I scroll though the edit history and talk subjects of this article, there is one theme several people have pointed out: Some editors here seem to have some type of ties to the Refinery29 website. That site has a history of racial bias, and this is even specified on the wikipedia page for them, as they are involved in several lawsuits because of their racism towards their own employees. When the context of this is posted, editors like Doug Weller and a couple of others, based on the edit history, the context is reverted. And Black media sources are deemed "unreliable", yet Refinery29 is propped up as a reliable source. And according to the talk history here, other editors who challenge this racially biased editing here on wikipedia are also discredited. Why is non-neutral editing allowed on wikipedia so blatantly? Lucabien (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that the reference is problematic in any way at all? I see past discussions about it on this talk page, where blocked editors didn't like it, but they didn't provide any rationale either.

I don't see any problems with the journalist. Given the focus of the publisher, the perspective seems due. I wish the publisher had a better reputation, but I'm not finding discussion about it failing BLP criteria. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did citation bot edit this article 11 hours ago?

Why did it do it? 2605:8D80:404:218A:8D0F:5813:C545:7DDA (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

why is this article lying about what he is most well known for?

nobody's ever heard of "hidden colours". the only thing he's known for is "buck breaking". what a pathetic and blatant attempt to bury the lede 155.4.132.233 (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

or rather, it's not that nobody's ever heard of his other work but he is clearly most well known for "buck breaking" 155.4.132.233 (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading Wikipedia's policy on Assuming Good Faith; other users having different views on how to frame an article does not necessarily indicate anyone is "lying" or engaged in a "pathetic and blatant attempt to bury the lede", and such accusations are not conducive to productive discussion.

Do you have sourcing for the claim that Nasheed is chiefly famous for Buck Breaking? AntiDionysius (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

yes, according to google trends his highest ever search interest was in april 2021 when "buck breaking" came out. to be fair, he's had almost as high search interest in other periods, but it peaked when "buck breaking" was released. so i think it is fair to say that he is mostly known for that movie.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22Tariq%20Nasheed%22&hl=en-GB 155.4.132.233 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)