Jump to content

Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

I removed this link as it appears to be undue and off-topic; Barry Mehler is apparently a controversial figure, so this link looked like a coatrack from the older version of the article:

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a 1993 source which was supporting present tense text, that BSup is making inroads in academia! Definitely no concerns about its present relevance.Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

Re-add category Afrocentrism. All three of the groups listed present Afrocentrist views.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

do you mean in the "see also" section? "Black Separatism" should probably be there too....if that's not what you mean could you explain..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the extensive edit; the edit request was for Afrocentrism only, which I kept in See also. Please achieve consensus for the other edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I meant the category, but it does belong in the see also section too, yes.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone else receive this?

This is the only warning you will receive for using inflammatory, derogatory, or racist language. Using inflammatory, derogatory, or racist language outside of a purely encyclopedic context is considered vandalism. Please review this policy before posting again. If you use inflammatory, derogatory, or racist language on Wikipedia in violation of this policy again, as you did to Talk:Black supremacy, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.

That was not signed by anyone. Carptrash (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay. This is the edit here that seems to go with the one I received. It was removed by the poster.
"::::::: Ex-fucking-cuse me? "Black supremacy is a product of white folks thinking"? Carptrash, if you're looking for racism, look at yourself.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)"
Carptrash
I don't understand what has happened here..someone explain please..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Some anon poster put that on my talk page. The first part, the warning about getting blocked. The second part was the same poster explaining what it was about. That was later removed by him (her?) I see now that it was only directed at me because of my comment, not at the general discussion. it could be removed, but I sort of like it as a reminder of what we are doing here and what we get to deal with. Or something like that. Carptrash (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
so that comment was also posted by IP 142? that person has been involved in the discussion here..I can't seem to find that comment in the history of your talkpage though...??68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The comment was left on this page.[1] Looks like Anonymous only shot him/herself in the foot. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
okay, thanks..yes, this editor has demonstrated a bit of an aggressive, unfriendly style even before this..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment was removed by me with this edit, as I found it to be a point of general discussion and uncivil. I now see that maybe I should not have done it as the IP editor took their uncivil behaviour to another editor's talk page, which is highly inappropriate.

Rather than reinstating this comment, I've provided a link to the diff for records. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

My "uncivil behvior"? I reacted to a racist comment and now I'm being the one accused of being uncivil?142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
carptrash's comment was a little bit out of line and unneccesary probably but your "reaction" to do it was way out of line...and I don't think your liberal use of the f word is particularly part of the Wikipedia culture whatsoever...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Racist

The result of the discussion seems to have been WP:NOCONSENSUS: there are tenable arguments regarding WP:NPOV on the one hand, and WP:RS on the other. However, this RfC, as commented in the last section here, seems to have been rendered of little relevance because the article has undergone an AfD and a much-needed revamp since the RfC was initiated. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently, there is ongoing dispute about wether Black supremacism is racist or not. In my opinion it is, since it fits the dictionary definition of racism. If anyone wants to share his/her opinion here, please do. --Laber□T 15:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Black supremacist and White supremacist both are a bunch of idiots, and yes both beliefs are racist! KoshVorlon 15:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Shabazz, a quick look at your editing history demonstrates degrees of tendentiousness on the matters of race, particularly race relations and racial history in the United States, as well as intersections of Jewish American and African American history. Recently, you were the subject of an investigation (WP:ARBPIA3) where you made inflammatory statements like "The Jewboy has chased the nigger off Wikipedia" and "Now when the fuck is somebody going to address the fact that the Jewboy is harassing me? Or is only okay to hound niggers off Wikipedia", prompting your declaration of retirement from editing Wikipedia, correct? I highly suggest you recuse yourself from this RfC, given your record on controversial subjects in this area. I am not planning on requesting an evaluation for a topic ban against you, seeing as that would appear to be an overreaction, so I am hopeful that you will act objectively in making your decision. JordanGero (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a policy-based reason to object to my policy-based !vote? If not, please keep your opinion to yourself. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
As a veteran editor, I'm sure you're aware of the WP:NPOV policy, yes? Anyways, thanks for your input. JordanGero (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to take a look at WP:V. Thanks for playing. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Along with WP:NPOV, consider understanding the concept behind WP:BLUE. You're welcome- the game's quite enjoyable from this position. You've demonstrated anti-Semitic verbiage in the recent past, and are now POV-pushing on an article that countenances groups that have engaged in vitriolic anti-Semitism. Well-played, sir. JordanGero (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
You can wave your arms in the air and quote essays until you're WP:BLUE in the face. A whole pile of essays doesn't eliminate the need for a Wikipedia article to comply with the core policy of verifiability. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
That's the entire point of WP:BLUE: if X is definitionally Y, it accords to WP:V by simple virtue of its equivalence and common knowledge of that equivalence, similarly to the relationship between "sky" and "blue". As discussed in WP:BLUE's lead, POV-pushing generally sidesteps this by engaging in selective pedantry, something you've demonstrated marvelously. JordanGero (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Laberkiste's opinion on the matter is not notable and their matching it to the "dictionary definition of racism" is a classic case of WP:OR. Malik Shabazz is correct. Until (1) RS are found and (2) enough sources mandate that WEIGHT is strong enough to have the word "racist" in the lead sentence, there's nothing to do here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll further add that I agree with Doug Weller's comment on the WP:ARC Laberkiste filed (here) that something close to WP:POINT is happening... That a case request was filed is quite ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
How can you say that, Evergreen, when you say that it's okay to call white pride racist, and cite an editorial piece by the Salon? You can't have your cake and eat it too. They're both racist, or they're both not. Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Salon didn't categories that article as an opinion piece. You cannot argue WP:OTHERTHINGS to insist this is racist. It's WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. There are many topics which are semantically parallel, but which sources treat differently (e.g., misogyny vs. misandry). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, they DID call it an opinion piece. The original piece is here [[2]] and it's filed as an OPINION — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Van Ballin' (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
So what? this isn't an opinion piece. Neither is this. Go find me a few scholarly, peer-reviewed books that say "black supremacy is a racist ideology" and we'll have something to talk about. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"Encyclopedia of African American History" hardly seems unbiased. And they don't have anything to back up those claims. Just becuase a random book says something, doesn't make it a Reliable Source. Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tentative support I think that sources can be found besides the SPLC one that has been added.[3] I'l need to be convinced otherwise. I was thinking of the new editor Jvdunn25 when I mentioned WP:POINT, an inactive editor who came back only to edit the White supremacy and black supremacy articles. By the way, I marched at Selma with King. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've spent some time looking into this myself - and I have yet to find or see reliable sources of sufficient number and weight to justify describing "black supremacy" as a racist ideology. Doug, the fact that the books in that google search link use the two terms on the same page doesn't prove anything - if you look at the very first link, it suggests that a racist "black supremacy" is a theoretical possibility but not something that exists or even could exist in practice. Several of the books that do describe black supremacy a racist ideology are decidedly non-mainstream, and potentially even WP:FRINGE (eg, Dinesh D'Sousza). I'll happily reconsider if people can present a significant number of high quality sources that characterize black supremacy as a racist ideology. But no one has done that yet. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to add, if I may, that the sourcing for this article in general is incredibly poor - some of the groups listed as "black supremacist" here are not described as such in the vast majority of RS, and there are no rs that I have seen or found that discuss "black supremacy" as a single, coherent concept or subject in its own right in any significant depth. It looks to me like someone looked long and hard for a few sources to support text that they'd already decided should be in the article, rather than going and looking at what the most reliable sources actually say about the subject. I'm still sceptical that this should be anything more than a stub, or perhaps a redirect to black nationalism (since that's how the vast majority of rs describe these exact same groups and ideas). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
perhaps you've had a hard time finding sources because the topic is racist by definition so it would be odd for sources to bother to confirm something of such an obvious nature....???68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Some good points. I'd certainly dismissed D'Sousza and several others. Maybe we should stub this and start again, as you suggest. A redirect would be unlikely to stick. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we start again on White Pride too then? Pride isn't the same as supremacy (I do not argue white supremacy isn't racist, it IS racist) and the sources on that article are questionable as well. Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It is important to note in this discussion the context into which 'pride' is used. This is often the justification regarding why white pride may be considered a racist statement whereas gay pride, hispanic pride or black pride may be considered as based on solidarity. Thus, in this context it would appear to be appropriate that black pride be considered an inherently anti-racist slogan, meant to combat racism in the United States and elsewhere. However, the reality is that it is almost exclusively not used in this context. Instead, black pride is often used by organizations such as the Nation of Islam that are universally regarded as hate groups. In the same sense as white pride being utilized primarily by Neo-Nazis and thus contributing to its controversial status, black pride is a favorite slogan among hate groups as well and should be described as such in the header of this article. Yes, there are historical differences between the origin of the phrases and yes, there are arguments that can be put forth regarding each one's legitimacy. However, Wikipedia is meant to be an objective, unbiased source of information that is constantly up-to-date and relevant so that its readers can stay informed. As such, I support describing in the header of this article that the slogan 'black pride' can be and has been used extensively by racist hate groups. Thethethe333 (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT of course it's racist, as the whole article objectively describes (including the first couple of sentences)...and the racism suggestion is cited to the Southern Poverty Law Center...April Fool's Day was a while back...68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Consider: White_supremacy#Alliances_with_black_supremacist_groups. --Laber□T 03:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Still OR... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I find this very curious that there are those who would actually consider "black supremacism" as not being racist. It's the opposite of white supremacism, and virtually all sources agree that it came about directly in response to white racism as a kind of "fight fire with fire," i.e. black racism versus white racism. I'm also curious why the lead states the SPLC considers that black supremacy "may" be racist. From what I'm reading, the SPLC definitively considers black supremacy to be racist, without question. I could understand how there may be a more open question as to whether or not ethnic or racial separatism constitutes racism, but when it comes to racial or ethnic supremacy, there is no question that such ideologies are racist and bigoted. Such supremacist ideologies have always been invariably tied to ethnic cleansing and genocide around the world. I'm just rather stunned that this would even be a matter of debate in this day and age. Laval (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Laval, the lead says that the SPLC says black supremacy "may" be racist because that's what the source says. If you have a source in which they "definitively" describe black supremacy as racist, please provide it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You'll have to provide me with an exact quote from that article, because I'm just not seeing it. The article makes it very clear that SPLC considers "black supremacy" racist. It doesn't say anywhere in the article that it "may" or "might" be racist. It says it's racist. Mind you, the article is titled "Black Separatism" rather than "Black Supremacy," so I imagine that the SPLC somehow differentiates between the two, though they certainly do not in regards to white separatism and white supremacy, which they and other anti-racist organizations consider one and the same. Regardless, by definition any form of racial or ethnic supremacy is racist and bigoted. Where are the sources that describe black supremacy as not being racist and bigoted? I'd like to see those, because I can't imagine any sane or rational person claiming that any form of supremacy isn't racist and bigoted. Look up these terms in the dictionary and encyclopedia. All of them describe ethnic and racial supremacy as horribly negative ideologies promoting the very worst forms of human chauvinism. Have we suddenly entered the Twilight Zone here? Since when did the promotion of racial supremacy suddenly become not racist??? Laval (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
        • First instance: "White groups espousing beliefs similar to black separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color." Second instance: "If a white group espoused similar beliefs with the colors reversed, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. Although the racism of a group like the Nation may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones." Now can you show me where the SPLC says that black supremacy is racist? (I'll ignore your rant about "by definition", because there's a name for that: engaging in original research.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
is this kind of like Bill Clinton's "depends on what the definition of is is"..?? But even more absurd..?? wikilawyering is against policy..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Black separatism (what the SPLC seems to be discussing) and Black supremacy are not the same thing though - if the article doesn't actually use the term black supremacy then why are we even using it here - particularly when there's a separate, existing Wikipedia article on what the SPLC article is discussing? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there the concept of unintentional/clueless trolling on Wikipedia? As three editors appear to be engaging in it here..they appear to be acting in "good faith" in that the seem to actually believe what they are putting forth makes sense...but the thinking is so bizarre that I'd say their behavior is disruptive...perhaps nothing can be done but for many others to come along and vote "support" as they all obviously will...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support by definition "supremacy" of any race is racist. Whether it's "good" or bad racism is a question for the article to discuss, but it's still a racist ideology to say one race is supreme or even to advocate on behalf of only one race. That is the definition of racism at its core. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - lest we forget, Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not on what people think matches a definition. Any of these !votes that say its obviously so because of the definition should be ignored. Sources people, sources. nableezy - 15:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
yeah "malik" quotes it himself and then tries to say it doesn't say what it says: "White groups espousing beliefs similar to black separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color." Because he is engaged in against policy wikilawyering.68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't wikilaywering. It's pointing out key policies. Doesn't matter if 100 people support this, without RS and WEIGHT shown, we cannot include it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
do you want me to quote it again for you? or are you now trying to argue SPLC isn't a RS?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
No one is saying the SPLC isn't a RS, so please stop misrepresenting the argument being made, namely that: 1) The article doesn't so much as mention "black supremacy," and is about a different ideology known as Black separatism, and 2) The article does not state that black separatism (much less black supremacy, which again, it doesn't even mention) is inherently racist - only that some black separatist groups might be racist. You are reading too much into a source that isn't even about (and doesn't even mention) the subject of this article. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel like WP:COMMON SENSE applies here. There's no disagreement that white supremacy, Asian supremacy, and arab supremacy are all racist, so why isn't black supremacy?142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The word common appears in the phrase "common sense". If it is commonly known then getting a source that specifically says what you want to include should be a trivial exercise. Why are all these people citing WP:BLUE and not just getting a frickin source? nableezy - 15:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
they are all highly related and definitionally entwined with each other (as the lead in the "black separatism" article explains)...so the SPLC quote (which is stating their belief that these groups are racist)is perfectly acceptable. I agree it doesn't much matter as of course these beliefs are disgustingly racist and anyone can figure that out (people don't particularly have to be told they're racist as the article already rightly defines them as such through its description of them)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Sir Joseph. This seems to be an RfC put forward by someone with an axe to grind. We didn't and still don't remove the pictures of Muhammad from his article when Islamists complained, why should we remove the word 'racist' from this article when black supremacists complain?142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Racism, by definition, is the belief that one race is superior to another. I don't see how "Neutral Wikipedia" can call white supremacy racist in the first sentance on that page, but claim so we should not here as well. Wikipedia serves to have a neutral point of view. If it fits a definition for racism, then it's racism here. Plain and simple. This is an encyclopedia, not a safe space hug box. Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
So do you support white pride as being labeled as racist, despite a lack of reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Van Ballin' (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The article can properly begin: "Black supremacy, a racist ideology,...." And need absolutely no source to support the claim as it's uncontroversial summary of the article proper...whether that's stylistically a good choice is another matter (though seems good to me)...anyone who doesn't understand this is wikilawyering (against policy) and wasting people's time via disruptive editing (against policy)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

PROPOSE: someone insert the clause "a racist ideology" in first sentence of intro (to exactly mirror the white supremacy article) via uncontroversial article summary...and them end this ridiculous RfC (which was necessitated due to the against policy behavior of some editors, ie wikilawyering)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose until such time as stronger sources can be found which not only use the term, but explain what they mean. The reader is quite capable of forming an opinion on what info there is as to what extent this ideology may be racist. The word in itself is more a 'label' than informative, in one sense any belief centred on race is 'racist'. Racist is also not a clearly defined term, in some uses the term implies not only an attitude or belief about 'the other(s)', but also the power to implement those attitudes or beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's not essential to summarize it as "racist" for people..but it would be totally proper summary to do so (as you'll notice it's included in the "white supremacy" article)..absolute wikilawyering to require a cite imo..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikilayering... You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
insisting that one find a reliable source that says exactly "this topic is racist" is ridiculous, a waste of people's time, and lawyering..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it's sticking to WP policies. We honestly don't need a source for it. We need multiple ones, added throughout the body of the article, so that we can add "racist" to the lead as a summary statement per WP:LEAD. This is what I mean when I keep harping on WP:DUE. Finding a single source isn't sufficient. It needs to be a defining, overarching quality of the topic to be included in the lead sentence. That people keep arguing "common sense" or OTHERTHINGS is getting ridiculous at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is total garbage in its current state anyway with almost no citations to support anything asserted in it, particularly the lead..I'm actualy quite sure that the concept of "black supremacy" doesn't particularly exist in any notable way and that this article should be RfD...you'll notice the "white supremacy" article exactly mirrors this one in the first few sentences but includes "a racist idealogy"...I'm sure you'll be running off right away to remove that....this article is a disaster, this RfC is a disaster, and lawyering is against policy...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If white supremacy is racist then so is black supremacy. It's quite as simple as that. supremacy by any race is racism. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The sources for white supremacy label it repeatedly as racist, so of course the lead sentence has "racist" in it. But comparing it to that article is a form of OTHERSTUFF. See misogyny compared to misandry. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
See WP:BLUE. The definition of supremacy is inherently racist, whether it's white or black. If a white person says "Whites are supreme" and you label that as racist, how is that any different than a black person saying "Blacks are supreme?" Not that obvious needs a source, I found one right away labeling both white and black groups s part of a racial ideology, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/racial.html and the SPLC, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2008/racist-black-hebrew-israelites-becoming-more-militant Sir Joseph (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
That source only uses the term "racist" in reference to white supremacy... which is my point. To quote: "In Florida, there is a very large representation of inmates with white supremacy or neo-Nazi beliefs. Their members have strong feelings of white ethnicity. Their philosophies tend to be neo-Nazi and racist. Their hate orientation and racial rhetoric can cause seriously disruptive undercurrents in the prison population and community." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
we realize that is your point; and your point is absurd.68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Then you don't understand how Wikipedia works... we neutrally reflect reliable sources. Even if we think those sources are wrong. We cannot insert our own editorial opinions or anything that is absent from those sources. The lead sentence is to summarize with due weight the defining key points of the topic at hand according to the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Why are you selective when quoting the Florida article? The title of the page is Racial Supremacy Gangs and mentions black supremacy groups. Then you have the SPLC article I linked as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: I am not selectively quoting it. The RfC is asking about adding "racist" to the lead. Not "racial". You argue that any form of supremacy is racist, but I'm saying that sources do not refer to Black supremacy as racist. The source you give supports my claim. The only mention of the word "racist" was in reference to White supremacy. And that's my entire point. There are not enough (or any?) sources that refer to Black supremacy as a racist ideology. Racial, yes. Not racist though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The SPLC called it racist, see my link above. In any event, I don't think it serves any purpose to continue debating this. We can let the RFC run its course. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
part of the problem is that "black supremacy" doesn't exist...I just search google news for the term and absolutely nothing comes up...this is basically a hoax article.....68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm probably going to make a RfD for this article....the intro is a brief essay that has nothing to do with the article proper (the article proper is just links to other Wikipedia articles)...nothing suggests to me that the term "black supremacy" is used in any coherent or notable manner in the real world...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
68.48.241.158, 'black supremacy' doesn't exist 'in any coherent or notable manner', but is obviously racist? Errrrr? When a subject is inherently controversial (as this is), it is MORE vital that we apply WP guidelines and follow sources EXACTLY. This is not wiki-lawyering nor any kind of lawyering. Do I/you/any of us think it is racist? Who cares or would even want to know? If it is SO obvious that it is (in some senses) racist, why do we need to say it? Because the word is used on some of the 'white pages'? Personally I think the term is a bit meaningless and more of a judgement than imparting real info, but what I/you/any of us thinks only comes into play in how to present the balance of all available RS in an impartial way. That's the deal we make when we edit here. Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
the words exist and can be put together to create a phrase...but this phrase doesn't correspond to anything that is notably going on in the real world, as far as I can tell...the phenomenon of "black supremacy" doesn't exist in the real world...the term doesn't correspond to anything that is notably being called "black supremacy" in the real world...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
someone appears to have gathered together a few groups, decided to label these groups "black supremacism" and created a Wikipedia article...????68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Very possibly some truth in that, having spent a while following the links, there are a rag-bag of often poorly sourced and written, out-of-date, often PoV articles. Good Luck! I'm only here for the RfC!Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I said much the same thing eight months ago, other people have made the same complaint going back many years. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Whether or it it's racist is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable independent third parties say about it, because those are the views that the content of wikipedia is meant to reflect. I suggest re-casting the RfC in a way that says something useful about the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: There is no conceptual differentiation between believing in white or black supremacy (or the supremacy of any other race, for that matter). The concept itself, regardless of adherents or its institutional favor, is racist- period. Many an argument attempts to reject this by defining racism as exclusively being institutional racism. This is a misguided synecdoche. Institutional racism is simply one type of racism, and the fact that black supremacy regards the same conceptualizations of racial superiority as white supremacy, albeit incorporating distinct theories (e.g., Melanin Theory), counsels clearly for its categorization as racist. JordanGero (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
JordanGero, then it should not be difficult to find good RS describing each of these organisations as inherently 'racist' in character, but to date no one has.Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter this article is going to have go be deleted or hugely reworked to have any semblance of being inline with policy..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If an organization preaches black supremacy, they are definitionally racist. That conclusion is not synthesis; it is WP:COMMON SENSE and WP:REASON RULE. All that is required from the sources is that they describe the listed organizations as preaching some form of black supremacy. JordanGero (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
please see the two sections below...this topic doesn't exist in real world...there's no such thing as "black supremacy" being used as a term in the real world to describe any kind of notable movement/beliefs...the article exists against policy...there are no sources for it in general, which is why there are no sources saying explicitly that it is racist...it is a hoax article...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
JordanGero, you have (inadvertently possibly), 'hit the nail on the head', when you say All that is required from the sources is that they describe the listed organizations as preaching some form of black supremacy. The problem is that if you look at the article and the linked 'mains', no such RS description is offered. I spent a whole evening following refs and links, the best I could find were refs to individuals connected to these organisations being racist or supremacist, or tending toward supremacist positions or organisations having 'supremacist or racist wings' to them. Some of the people invoved with these groups are pretty unsavoury, some of the groups' beliefs are faintly 'whacko', but is believing yourself to be the REAL descendents of a tribe of Israel inherently supremacist? I was persuaded on my trawl that there are individuals who have advocated beliefs which have properly been described as 'supremacist' and 'racist', unfortunately, without a great deal of SYNTH and selective quoting, I could not come up with a reasonable case that most of the groups covered in the body of the article had been described as either.
As I'm sure you know, the lead should ONLY be a summary of info which is developed in the body of an article. I invite you to point to me where in the article it is made clear that the bulk of these groups hold 'supremacist' beliefs, in what sense?, how?, when? who says? (RS'd of course), I could not see it. The IP 68.48.241.158 above isn't far off the mark saying it is a hoax article and this is a problematic RfC, since it invites us to comment on whether 'supremacy X' is inherently racist, without offering any evidence about what 'supremacy X' IS, or if it even exists, apart from our own preconceptions.
When there is a 'body' in which the 'supremacist' nature of these groups is properly and neutrally established, THEN we can have a meaningful discussion, based NOT on whether any of us think the WORD supremacist=racist, (it probably does, but not the other way round) but on whether or not a reasonable body of evidence is available that the named groups/individuals and positions ARE actually either/both supremacist or/and racist. Until then, why would we endorse claims being in the lead that almost zero evidence is offered for in the article? Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Where did I mention anything about specific groups? That has nothing to do with my argument or this RfC, which is about whether the concept of black supremacy itself should, as with white supremacy, be described as a racist ideology, and for that to stand, all that is necessary is WP:COMMON SENSE, WP:REASON RULE, WP:BLUE. There is no synthesis here, given that supremacist ideas surrounding race are per se racist, by definition. What you seem to be proposing is that there is no real world evidence whatsoever of this concept being actually held or practiced, and that is an argument I have not engaged or investigated, nor do I feel is directly relevant to this particular RfC. JordanGero (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I know that you did not mention groups, and I did not mean to imply you did. However a lead is a summary of the article, not an extrapolation on the inherent or implied meanings of words. NOTHING can be in the lead, if it is not developed in the article. Is 'Welsh Supremacy' racist? No one can possibly answer that question until they know what 'Welsh Supremacy' is. Maybe it's a myth? Maybe it's a 'scare story' spread by us English? Maybe it's a kind of potato?
Whether intentionally or not, the 'tail is waving the dog' in this article and in this RfC?. The lead is endorsing the fact that these groups/theories/ideas are both 'supremacist' and 'racist', with pretty poor evidence. IMHO the word 'racist' is anyhow often redundant. The article on a well-known Austrian-German uses 'racism' once and 'racist' never. Why? Because it is too busy telling us exactly what he believed and did.
Is the belief that Black people are innately superior to other races, inherently 'racist'? Probably, but let's establish first who (if anyone) actually believes this and to what extent before deciding how to label it. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
If "black supremacy" did not mean "blacks are superior to other races", then I would agree with you, but that is what that term definitionally communicates, just like how the term "Welsh supremacy", when describing an ideology, would be definitionally racist. This isn't an "implication"- it is what the primary definition of racism is, i.e., belief in supremacy of a given race over other races. If you feel the sources contradict this or are nonexistent, then you are arguing for article deletion or retitling. JordanGero (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
No actually what I'm arguing for is reworking the article from ground up based on what RS say do they actually describe it as an ideology?. Until that is in place, any decision about what should be in the lead, is inevitably OR/SYNTH based on little but our preconceptions of what we think the term MUST mean. I don't think BlSup is a total myth nor wholly a 'scare story', (nor a potato), but it might as well be for all we know when putting together arguments based on dictionary definitions. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we've both said our piece here; the article is about the concept of a particular race's supremacy over other races, which is the accepted and prevailing definition of the term racism. If there are not enough sources to make that concept notable for having its own article, it should be deleted. Reworking it while keeping the same title sounds like an attempt at having and eating one's cake, unless it can be shown that "black supremacy" does not mean "blacks are superior to other races", which borders on oxymoronic absurdity.JordanGero (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional support (summoned by bot): I support this addition, providing that sources are provided and discussion of the characterisation (including any relevant debates about it) is given some space in the main body of the article. I've looked for some sources, and some possible candidates include this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Cordless Larry, for finding some relevant sources. However, the first source—which I consider the strongest of the three—says only that say black supremacy "may be an instance of racism" (emphasis added). The second source tries to eat its cake and have it too (Is black supremacy racist? On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, no.) The third source quotes Martin Luther King saying that black supremacy is evil, not racist. That's pretty thin gruel. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
the problem is we're debating what is sensical to put into a nonsensical article...I'd advise Larry to have a look at the AfD for this article instead of spending more time in this RfC..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That is a different question altogether. This RfC is about whether the concept of black supremacy is appropriately described as racist. For that, I refer you to WP:BLUE. The AfD issue is distinct, though given the sources provided by Cordless Larry after a quick search, I'm not convinced this page is "nonsensical" or a "hoax" in the slightest. JordanGero (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You keep mentioning BLUE, but it's important to note that it's (1) an essay and (2) talks about verification, not contested info. The issue here is that many sources clearly and explicitly call white supremacy "racist" but that the term is notably lacking for sources talking about black supremacy. We cannot insert the term when the sources used don't even use it, yet in a related example they do. That would be WP:OR. This isn't just a pedantic, obstructionist argument being raised where common sense and plenty of easily-found sources can verify a certain contested point. That it isnot easy to find sources labeling this as "racist" makes it beyond the scope of BLUE. Again, I point to misogyny compared to misandry. The case is similar; the prejudice against the socially dominant (men) is not labeled sexist (because most RS don't call it that), but prejudice against the social minority (women) is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried reading and following this discussion but I quickly got a headache. I don't even know what Support and Oppose represent. But I agree that unless a reliable source can be quoted saying that these beliefs are racist then it should not be said. The fact that there is not source saying that they are NOT racist is meaningless. Otherwise I will insist that the movement is part of the Unitarian Universalism movement unless you can specifically find a reference that says it is not. Carptrash (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Carptrash, Support=Include the word 'racist', Regardless of whether sources use this exact word, or believing other descriptors are sufficiently close Oppose=Don't include the word 'racist'With some people qualifying how much additional proof they believe is required. Include/Don't include, would work equally well! Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I keep mentioning WP:BLUE because it is apposite in this context. Supremacist ideology on the basis of race is definitionally racist; that is not WP:OR, but rather WP:BLUE, WP:COMMON SENSE and WP:REASON RULE. Your analogy to misandry and misogyny is misguided: misandry is per se sexist, definitionally, and is not equivalent with a hatred of a male-dominated society, just like black supremacy is not equivalent to a hatred of a white-dominated society. Your opposition boils down to selective pedantry against a concept that, much like the sky being blue, is definitionally racist. If you feel that the sources within are not substantial enough for there to be a dedicated article on this topic, that is a different issue (AfD).JordanGero (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You are using one (contested) definition of racism. But again, if this is BLUE, providing a couple sources shouldn't be hard. Its clearly contested enough of an issue to have an RfC... and per LEAD, we need the body of the article to say it's racist for it to be summarized as such in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
We're going in circles now; the definition of racism I am using is the primary accepted definition of the word; you can exercise selective pedantry through this logic against the prevailing and accepted definition of any word to get around WP:BLUE or WP:COMMON SENSE. If you believe there are insufficient sources for this article to be an article, that is a different argument altogether. JordanGero (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You can keep linking it until you're WP:BLUE in the face - but the fact that we are having an RFC and that some very experienced editors are arguing with you in good faith suggests that this is not just a matter of "common sense." I think we've belabored that point enough - if you have nothing new to add over your previous comments, perhaps it's time to let others comment and let the RFC take its course. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Comical how you use the exact same deflection as MShabazz above to shoehorn selective pedantry into the discussion. You can huff and puff all day long at the sky being blue or at the definition of words and scream WP:OR until you're hoarse and red in the face, but it doesn't present a substantive argument against racial supremacy being the exact primary and accepted definition of the term racism. This is a controversial topic that invites inclinations counter to WP:NPOV, precisely in the form discussed by WP:BLUE (i.e., selective pedantry). If you feel the article is not properly sourced, then that is an argument about its deletion or retitling, not about the accepted meaning of words. You've said your piece here as well, so kindly abstain from stirring the pot by telling me indirectly to shut up. Cheers. JordanGero (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the use of the word "racist." Any time there is this much problem over a word wikipedia is better off not employing it and relying on solid sources to supply the language. Carptrash (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Support. Circles are round, squares have corners, and black supremacy is racist. Nobody should need a source for that! MayorGayer (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@MayorGayer: You had to create a wikipedia account to say that? And would you have a tough time finding a source that confirmed that circles are round and squares have corners? Try a 10th grade geometry text for starters. Carptrash (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure a 10th grade textbook on geometry would say "a circle is round." A 2nd grade picture book might. JordanGero (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Carptrash: No. What's the point of this accusation? Anyone is able to see I created my account before this discussion even started! Your second sentence is a total non-sequitur. The things I mentioned are there because they are obvious facts, not because they are hard to source. But if you want to play this game, find me a source which claims that squares have at least one corner (beware of WP:SYNTH using the fact that 4 > 1[citation needed]) MayorGayer (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for lumping you in with the other red linked editors who tend to show up at contentious articles, who just registered on wikipedia but who overnight are experts on the rules, policies, etc. And for my perhaps assuming bad faith on your part. Being new to wikipedia you probably don’t know about the “assuming bad faith” guidelines here, but, I should assume good faith on your part so I withdraw any snarky insinuations that I might have made about you. This comment left by user Carptrash

Oppose - It's not automatic to define something this way; find some sources to support a definition.Parkwells (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reluctant support black/white racism is unique because it it (in the West) the paradigmatic racism. A good deal of scholarship centers on the origins of racism, focusing on the 1400 and 1500s as the period when the attitudes that would dominate the Western world for centuries formed. For the next several centuries racism meant white racism towards black and dark-skinned people. Whites, of course, held almost all the cards. The great shift, or,perhaps, the not so major shift, but, still, a shift, is in the fact that at a point in the 20th century it black intellectuals began in some numbers conceptualize a black world view that claimed not equality with but superiority to whites, and leaders of movements stepporward to claim and work to enact this claimed superiority. Intellectually, figures who tended towards some degree or version of black racial superiority includ Martin Bernal and his Black Athena, politically it included various strains of Black Power. It is a large, sprawling intellectual wave, broad enough to have its own fringe movements (Black Hebrew Israelites). This broad wave encompassed not only Black pride, and Black separatism, but also Black supremacy which is certainly a form of racism. The problem, of course, is that this supremacist ideology is in part a response to the vastly larger and more damaging reality of centuries of white racism. Still, Black racism is part of Black supremacy. Reluctahtly Support.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Possible, reluctant support. I think it is reasonable to say that any group which strongly indicates that one ethnic group is in some way "better' than another in general would qualify as supremacist. I acknowledge, based on my own ignorance of all the factors involved, that it might be possible that some one ethnic group out there might be better or worse in some particular fields or field (perhaps, for instance, eyesight or something), but that would not be sufficient to label any group involved as "supremacist" or anything similar. Having said that, from what I can tell there seems to be some question regarding exactly how this proposed information is to be added to the article, and I think it would likely be vitally important for any responders to have a clearer idea as to what sort of specific phrasing is being considered than I have right now after reading through this discussion. If the KKK were to be considered one of the sources for this material, for instance, it might be sufficient for us to say "some groups have described [group x] or [the idea in general] as a form of 'black supremacy,'" or something along those lines, but maybe not sufficient for anything worded more strongly than that. So, having some ideas of what sources are being considered, exactly what they say and in what context, and who the sources of those sources are would all be important for helping newcomers to this discussion to be able to provide better-informed statements. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Poorly worded RfC: "... an ongoing dispute about whether Black supremacism is racist or not. If anyone wants to share his/her opinion here, please do." This sounds like an opinion poll, whereas we need to be looking at whether RS are describing it in this way, and whether this concept exists or not outside of a few fringe groups. Another issue is if it's substantially covered by sources, which I've not seen so far. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Notwithstanding the poor wording in this RfC, of course it's racist. It's been listed at the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. It's mentioned at the Southern Poverty Law center in describing The Nation of Islam. It's pretty much common sense just with the wording. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
No one disputes that named individuals or named groups have been called 'racist', what is missing is any clear definition of what 'Black supremacy' is and any source that actually says that belief is racist. If sources said it, there would be no argument and no RfC. They don't. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what sources you like as opposed to others. Sites like The Nationalist Party of America are pretty crystal clear on White and Black supremacy movements being racist in nature. I think it's self evident and imho not believing that would mean one would hold Black Supremacy to a different standard than White Supremacy. I don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you read the stuff on that website? Sample: "Multiculturalism - a doctrine which asserts that several or more different cultures can coexist peacefully within a single nation.[1] (Obviously all of human history contradicts this utopian notion)" "Obviously?" But let us (1). not get sidetracked and (2) not consider this website as a credible reference. Carptrash (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I have never said that I believe BlSup is NOT racist, in terms of ordinary speech, most people would think it was. But what we privately believe or don't believe is irrelevant. The source you cited is a muddled polemic which equates 'multiculturalism' with 'open-border policies' but also with 'segregation', 'nationalist' with 'supremacist', etc. It even manages to blame the US Civil War on 'multiculturalism'! In so far as race was a factor in that war, I thought it was because the South wished to remain totally 'mono-cultural'. Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That was just one of many I found. Books like Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice talk about it being the mirror image of White Racism. Or the Chicago Tribune article that talks of Louis Farrakhan's Black Supremacy being racist. There's Antisemitism in North America: New World, Old Hate which says Black Supremacy is anti-semitic which is racist. It's talked about in Horowitz's book "Hating Whitey" but I couldn't find excerpts online to link to. These types of things can be found all over the place. But anyway, I gave my viewpoint of support and I'm pretty much done here. It popped up on my talk page to come here help out and give my perspective, and I've now done so. I'm not going to argue back and forth for 20 years on whether or not you like the sources I found. I've read enough to know it's a racist ideology. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm also done here, I also read enough to be persuaded that some of these groups have been reliably described by words that are much stronger than 'racist'. Some are characterised as 'hate groups', some have been accused of violence and illegality, some have beliefs that most of us find a-historical to the point of being 'whacko'. I also came across at least one book from the 1950's that claimed that 'the South' was in imminent danger from the threat of 'Black supremacy', again nothing usefully quotable. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - It seems obvious to me that it's racist, but the opposition are correct that we can't just call it racist because we know or believe it to be racist. As this discussion has revealed, there are reliable sources which support the conclusion, so as long as they can be added, the RfC shouldn't really be necessary. Oppose calling it racist based simply on OR. Support the phrasing provided it follows verifiability, which I'm sure it will. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Close this RfC?

Can we voluntarily close this RfC based on 1) the re-focus on the use of the term makes 'racist' redundant 2) Where 'racist'/hate group/other term is used about any specific group(s) the attributed inclusion is permissible, but 'general' use in the lead would need stronger sources than we now have? Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, close...it's become irrelevant..with the events of the AfD and its influence on totally changing the article from what is was (in a positive way) this has all become neither here nor there....68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Laber□, as the person who opened the RfC, would you agree to this being closed on the basis outlined above? Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History?

This article seems weirdly ahistorical. The term "black supremacy" was commonly used for groups associated with the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad in particular. Why is that not mentioned in this article? There is no real source mentioned for the definition of "black supremacy" in this article and how and why it evolved. This article by Cornel West and this book might be useful. I'll get around to it if I get the time, meanwhile, I'm leaving these links here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't read your link, but what was discovered in recent 'heavy prune' and AfD discussion is that there are few sources discussing in depth. Related concepts 'nationalism', 'hate group' etc. are more often used. Good luck if you can find anything, what is left now is the result of massive pruning of WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on this MLK quote? Possibly to be put into article?

When talking about "black power", MLK stated "A doctrine of black supremacy is as evil as a doctrine of white supremacy." Would this be relevant to the article? Zaostao (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It would, if we had an expanded 'history' section. The article has just survived a massive prune and AfD process since most of it was WP:OR and synth. Sources on the subject are actually very thin.Pincrete (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
King first said that about the Nation of Islam when they came to national attention in 1959, and a little context is helpful. Black supremacy is an ideology, a fantasy; in 1959, white supremacy was the law of the land. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Derrrr this highlights the problem. Whilst we have tons of people using the term inc. King, X and Elijah M., we have noone saying what it is and if it exists apart from as a 'rhetorical' device. Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The SPLC also state that "These black supremacist groups have used bizarre interpretations of the Bible to justify their racist beliefs in much the same way that white supremacist groups have", so possibly something like 'Black supremacy has been equated with white supremacy by civil rights groups and activists' could be added? Zaostao (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, no they haven't. Please read what Pincrete and I wrote. You want to play make-believe and act as if there is no history to either of these concepts. There is. One was enforced by law in the United States for nearly 350 years, the other is a fantasy. I hope you know which is which. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

King's statement compared the two "doctrines." It had nothing to do with reality on the ground. If you have an article on Black Supremacy it makes perfect sense to include this quote by Dr. King. Further, add to that, you need to include the SPLC quote because why else would the SPLC focus on these groups? Right now it's unclear from the article why the SPLC has these black supremacist groups in their focus. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Concur with MShabazz and Pincrete and as having participated in the pruning of this article. Stating that 'Black supremacy has been equated with white supremacy by civil rights groups and activists' would be a false equivalence not found in sources. Best to leave this out. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Also quoting myself from the discussion above: "Here's an interesting take on "black supremacy" from Cornel West, in his book Race Matters. What's interesting is that "black supremacy" appears in the book only three times; this indicates to me that it's a fairly marginal subject." K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If anybody again seriously suggests adding the quote from King, I strongly advise adding the rebuke it earned from Elijah Muhammad, his target:
He has never lived under his own people's rule. He has never seen the black man lynching and burning the black man. He has never had the experience of having to go on freedom rides, sit-in strikes under black rule, to force them to serve him. Mr. King and his followers are showing the world that they love white supremacy, and hope it will rule them forever.
Source (also cited above) Alternative source, from a publisher related to the Nation of Islam — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with MLK? Didn't he say black supremacy was as evil as white supremacy, implying they're both evil? Zaostao (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No justification for the El Moh 'reply' to King, since EM doesn't even say anything about BS. No objection to King counter-balanced by MX, though I can see problems in neutral phrasing. King and MX seem to exemplify the two 'positions' in the 60s, … … and since? Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's true that black supremacy is rarely mentioned in the media, despite racists like Robert Mugabe violating white rights in Zimbabwe and telling them to "go back to England", that's why I thought the MLK quote would be worthy of inclusion despite being made 50 years ago. Zaostao (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

Could it be that "black supremacy" is not mentioned when discussing Robert Mugabe because there is no link between the two except perhaps the one you seem to have in your mind? Carptrash (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

He called himself Hitler and I usually associate Hitler with some sort of racial supremacy and "land-grabs" from a certain race of people, anyway, that was just a passing comment, this is about the MLK quote. Do you think it should be included? Zaostao (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Since the discussion is still on-going, this thread may be of relevance, as it makes me wonder if the addition of MLK's quote is being brought up in from a neutral point of view: Talk:Jared_Taylor#Part_2. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with the MLK quote? I could also argue that editors with names such as Malik Shabazz are possibly not completely impartial in this. Zaostao (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
You could so argue, but then I would point you to my 10 years and 95,000 edits that show I don't engage in making up racist bullshit and inserting it in front of footnotes, or engage in original research about living people on talk pages (as you are doing here). And you would point me to... what exactly? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Just by scrolling up in this talk page, "Mr. Shabazz, a quick look at your editing history demonstrates degrees of tendentiousness on the matters of race, particularly race relations and racial history in the United States, as well as intersections of Jewish American and African American history. Recently, you were the subject of an investigation (WP:ARBPIA3) where you made inflammatory statements like "The Jewboy has chased the nigger off Wikipedia" and "Now when the fuck is somebody going to address the fact that the Jewboy is harassing me? Or is only okay to hound niggers off Wikipedia", prompting your declaration of retirement from editing Wikipedia, correct?". Not a great example of civility and impartiality when it comes to matters of race, especially for a veteran editor like yourself.
Anyway, this discussion is about the MLK quote which states that black supremacy is as evil as white supremacy. Do you think it should be included or not? Zaostao (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Your inability to read is truly scary. WP:IDHT much? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a fan of this edit, myself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Similar to my suggestion on Jared Taylor Talk page, may I suggest to the OP that they start an RfC on the topic, as it appears that there is no consensus to include this quote and the discussion is going in circles. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe the discussion has concluded and the consensus was not to include it. If the OP disagrees, then the next step is an RfC, as I already mentioned. Otherwise, pls see WP:Notaforum. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 3, Dr. Konia

Could the editor who added the content provide the quotation from the source to establish context? Meanwhile, I will restore to consensus version which has been stable for weeks. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Anything published by the American College of Orgonomy is, by definition, unreliable. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This one is published by another source and another author: https://books.google.com/books?id=di2YVLKgIC8C&pg=PA209&dq=black+supremacy+racist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC7sLc__XNAhVE4D4KHQBRAWEQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=black%20supremacy%20racist&f=false and just because it's published by the ACO doesn't make it not reliable, it is well reviewed. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Please provide links to allegedly positive reviews from people not associated with Konia and this fringe pseudoscience. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This source actually says 'BS may be an instance of racism … and its advocacy offensive but....' hardly a strong assertion upon which to base an opening lead sentence in WP voice. Again 1 mention. Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Sad to see that still, in 2016, Wikipedia decides to promote hateful and racist viewpoints. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Sad to see an apparent inability to read carefully. Wikipedia isn't promoting anything. Your source doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements to be considered a reliable source. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Why racist hate? Just open your heart to love, people are equal --Tiiliskivi (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

if white supremacy is a "racist" term, then it only seems fair that black supremacy is labeled as a racist term, otherwise that itself, is racist Cjc1738 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Grayfell (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed repeatedly - please see the large blue box further up the page - Arjayay (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Nation of Islam to list?

I've only just noticed that NoI is no longer on the article list (possibly because SPLC doesn't describe them as BSup). I think the King quote (above) justifies their inclusion, properly attributed to King and given a 'time stamp' of when the description was made. If people agree, when/where exactly was the King quote made? Pincrete (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Way, way back when (like well over a year ago, if memory serves) I removed a section on NOI from the article, because none of the sources cited described the group as black supremacist, and at the time I couldn't find any that did. No objection to re-including it if enough sources can be found, but in general NOI is described as a black nationalist group rather than as a black supremacist one. When I looked into this, it immediately became clear to me that a massive, overwhelming majority of RS described them as nationalist rather than supremacist, and I concluded that labeling them supremacist was incorrect/undue as a result. Personally, I don't think one instance of King calling them supremacist is enough to over-ride a huge number of RS that clearly describe them as a black nationalist group, but I'm not about to go to war over it. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I can easily provide sources, but you may not like the fact that they use "black supremacy" as a neutral description of the group's beliefs, not as the value judgment the phrase has become. As an example of the usage, in his first edition of The Black Muslims in America (1961; the first book-length treatment of the NoI), C. Eric Lincoln (himself a black man) explains the attraction of the group: "The lower-class Negro is ripe for the lure of black nationalism. He is proud to rediscover himself as a Black Man, linked to the great and venerable civilizations of the 'single black continent' of Afro-Asia. ... And he is jubilant at his new vision of the future—a future not of racial equality, for which he believes the white man has shown himself unfit, but of black supremacy. For 'black', to the black nationalist, is a quality and symbol of all that is glorious, triumphant and divine."[1] There's a reason King's criticism of the NoI was made before an audience primarily made up of white contributors to civil rights organizations, not black civil rights activists. He might have been laughed out of the room. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ * Lincoln, C. Eric (1961). The Black Muslims in America. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 48–49. OCLC 422580.
The whole present approach is 'have sometimes been described as (by someone reasonably authorative)', with attribution, so I am not suggesting "NOI are BSup". Since I don't have access to sources, and don't have much background knowledge, it might be better for someone else to frame a text.
Re: "laughed out of the room", sure, King was an extremely astute leader of a political movement, and as such, I'm sure constantly walking a tightrope of keeping onboard as many as he could of his 'key constituencies' without alienating his 'broader audience', or giving ammunition to those who would have loved to demonise all 'rights' movements. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Five percenters

Add this to the list. ev (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to explain further. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just interpreted that from the article. Was hoping a user with the know how would discuss with me whether or not this group qualified as black supremacist. I'm a novice, a layperson. It's just when I linked over to black supremacy I was surprised this group wasn't listed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Percent_Nation ev (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at that article for the first time and (not surprisingly) it's poorly sourced. The section about the group's racial beliefs is based on the writings of one person (Michael Muhammad Knight, whom I gather is a white (!) former member), an article in the Huffington Post, an article in Machete magazine that another editor had tagged as "failing verification", and a few pages in an academic book (that I just tagged as "failing verification" because I have the book, and the pages are about the Nation of Islam and don't mention the Fiver Percent Nation at all).
So, there are (at least) two problems. First, no reliable sources are cited in that article about what the Five Percent Nation's beliefs about white people are. Second, no reliable source is cited that describes the organization or its beliefs as black supremacist. Without the latter, there's no way it belongs in this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just help me. Am I misinterpreting the spun off NOI sect that believes the black man is God? ev (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarence 13 X also rejected the traditional Mulsim belief that God was separate from man. Instead, "Clarence 13 X claimed that the black man was God personified, and that each black man could cultivate and eventually realize his godliness through meditation, study, and spiritual and physical fitness." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5614846 ev (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You mention there is no mention of five percenters "beliefs on white people are," however is that belief in either way a qualifier for black supremacy? ev (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Could it be possible for a member of the five percent nation to not agree with its core tenets? Fairly intuitive to deduce a black supremacist view, and it's a group, so it's therefore a group that has black supremacist views. Right?

"Tenets of the Five Percent Nation (1.) That black people are the original people of the planet Earth. (2.) That black people are the fathers and mothers of civilization. (3.) That the science of Supreme Mathematics is the key to understanding man's relationship to the universe. (4.) Islam is a natural way of life, not a religion. (5.) That education should be fashioned to enable us to be self-sufficient as a people. (6.) That each one should teach one according to their knowledge. (7.) That the black man is God and his proper name is ALLAH — Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head. (8.) That our children are our link to the future and they must be nurtured, respected, loved, protected and educated. (9.) That the unified black family is the vital building block of the nation." ev (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

First, no, believing that black people are god incarnate is not equivalent to black supremacy; black supremacy requires that they believe that white people are inferior to black people, and the source doesn't say anything about what the Five Percent Nation thinks about white people.
Second, even if I thought that it was indicative of black supremacy, Wikipedia's policies requiring verifiability and prohibiting original research don't allow me to add what I think to articles. Editors need to cite reliable sources, not what they think. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I certainly disagree with you. To claim to be god is definitively equivalent to supremacy, as long as we interpret the English language using a dictionary. Conversely, to believe the white race as the devil is contradictory to your opinion. Not sure any reader could conclude otherwise based solely on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Percent_Nation along with its "supreme mathematics and alphabet" and its 64 sources and external links. ev (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I know from your other posts that you are one user that clearly holds a biased opinion. Respectfully ev (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Any form of racial superiority need not hold an opinion on any other race of people. The belief that their race is supreme indicates they hold inferior any and all other race. Therefore the opinion of this group toward white race would be moot ev (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources need to be the ones to call later it Black supremacist. Otherwise inclusion is WP:SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

straight black pride

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Black pride is a movement in response to dominant white cultures and ideologies that encourages black people to celebrate black culture and embrace their African heritage. In the United States, it was a direct response to white racism especially during the Civil Rights Movement. Related movements include black power, black nationalism, Black Panthers and Afrocentrism.

Straight pride is a slogan that arose in the late 1980s and early 1990s and has been used primarily by social conservative groups as a political stance and strategy.[1] The term is described as a response to gay pride[2][3][4] adopted by various LGBT groups in the early 1970s or to the accommodations provided to gay pride initiatives.

Straight pride backlash incidents have generated controversy and media attention. School policies and court decisions regarding freedom of expression have drawn particular attention, spotlighting individuals protesting school expressions against harassment of LGBT adolescents

and therefore: straight black pride is a thing too. #straightblackpride — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:40D:AD00:7892:8D55:E26:7D6A (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. This would only validate and legitimize an argument that white pride is a thing. ev (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue of Racism

It seems to me that it is necessary to open up the topic about classifying Black Supremacy as Racism. The fact that this topic keeps coming up would demonstrate that the current classification is unsuitable for wikipedia. Brough87 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying we should ignore the lack of reliable sources and engage in original research because "this topic keeps coming up"? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What I recommend is having a discussion about the classification of Black Supremacy; "the belief black people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds" (as the wiki page states), as racism. I am yet to see a reliable source that states or seeks to prove that a belief that "black people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds", is not racism. Furthermore, we are talking about a social phenomena which is very much defined in the eye of the beholder, not by a series of irrefutable objective facts. If we define Racism as 'X' and then apply that definition only when it suits an overarching political ideology, that would constituent WP:NOTHERE. As for the point about the topic 'coming up again and again', that was merely made as a proof that the current article is not fit for purpose and does not coherently justify its position. Brough87 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What you're describing sounds like original research. I don't understand how we can describe "black supremacy" as racist unless we can cite reliable sources that say that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That is not original research. If the consensus agrees a definition of racism (backed by reliable sources), we must apply that definition across the board without prejudice. The current situation as it stands is that if I replace the word 'black' in the following: "the belief black people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds"; with the word 'white', the phrase goes from apparently a non-racist statement to a racist statement. This is not only illogical, but is also a position not supported by reliable sources. If we continue with the position as it stands, not only will this particular topic continue forever-more, we will be furthering a specific ideological position (Wikipedia:Advocacy), rather than providing objective information about a social phenomena. This is of course an example of WP:NOTHERE, but also goes against the founding principle of Wikipedia itself. Brough87 (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This has all been debated before, I suggest checking out the talk page archives. Back then, no one could produce enough reliable sources to support the wording you're lobbying for. Whether or not you think it's obvious is immaterial, clearly Malik and I (and probably multiple other editors who participated in earlier discussions) disagree. Find some sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This has been debated before, and will continue to be debated because the consensus has not been effectively established. In the previous comment, I laid out some key issues with the current situation; do you have a response for any of the points I've made? Are any of them illegitimate? Are any of them 'beyond the pale' in regards to Wikipedia guidelines? Brough87 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If it isn't original research, you will have no difficulty finding RS to back you up, if you can't, it is OR, simple as that. For whatever reason, they don't, in fact so little has been written that the article was nearly deleted not long ago. If it is any consolation, I don't particularly like white sup being described as 'racist' in WP voice since the term is more of a label than informative, but that's their business. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, Pincrete. In articles or sections I've written (or rewritten), I attribute the opinion that somebody or something is racist or antisemitic to the source; I don't think they're objective facts that can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice.
With respect to your suggestion, Brough87, I don't engage in exercises such as "what if we replace 'black' with 'white'". The fact is that reliable sources say different things about white supremacy and black supremacy. You don't have to like that, you don't have to agree with it, but you do have to respect the fact that since Wikipedia is written based on what is written in reliable sources, white supremacy and black supremacy are not going to be treated as mirror images of one another so long as reliable sources say different things about them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You implicitly engage in those exercises when you apply different definitions to the same form of bigotry, with the only difference being the perpetrator. It is not an act of original research to suggest that we apply the same intellectual standard across the whole of Wikipedia. Do we deny that Black Supremacists are bigots? Do we deny that they support discrimination and racism? Is their rhetoric not racist? Thoughts to consider perhaps. But seeing as you are refusing my amendment on an intellectual standard I shall present some sources. In (Chicago University) Professor Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar's book "Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity", he records that in MLKjr's criticism of Nation of Islam, "King attacked the Muslims for their hate. He saw the NOI's belief in the demonization of the white race as unhealthy, dangerous, and equal to the racism of many whites. During his address to the National Bar Association in that year, King condemned the Nation for being a "hate group arising in our midst which would preach a doctrine of black supremacy". The passage goes on to say: "Contrary to the language of the Muslims, the Nation offered only a 'philosophy based on contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission." (Source: pg 44, Ogbar J. Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity: Johns Hopkins University Press). So now there's a source that shows a clear belief that black supremacy is considered "equal to the racism of many whites". I therefore recommend that change on the grounds of intellectual consistency and standards, as well a source from a Professor giving his own and the thoughts of Martin Luther King jr on the subject. I would be interested in hearing your response(s). Brough87 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I see a lot of hand-waving, but what I still don't see—after several years of asking—is a reliable source that says, in plain English, that black supremacy is a racist ideology. That's all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require, but nobody has been able to cite a single solitary reliable source that makes such a statement. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
So when I referenced Professor Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar of Chicago University, and his book "Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity", and made clear that Martin Luther King saw Black Supremacy as "equal to the racism of many whites"; that's "hand-waving" in your eyes? Or did you just not read what I wrote? Brough87 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

nb edit confict Brough87, I'm sorry but the only criteria for describing anybody as anything, is WP:RS. Actually there is very little about 'Black supremacy' written at all. The SPLC describe several groups as 'supremacist', we use that, but none of them applies the term 'racist' to 'supremacy', though they do use other negative terms. If no one has written much about a subject, we can't make up what we think they ought to have written. We are not applying different standards, simply sourcing what we write and what is left in this article is the very little that has been written about black supremacy. There may be reasons why little has been written, there may be reasons why the term 'racist' has not been used, we can do nothing about that. Pincrete (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

King doesn't say what you claim, he says some VERY critical things about NOI, I wouldn't object to his criticism going on the NOI page. King clearly is very opposed to people who would preach a 'doctrine of black supremacy', (what does the 'would' mean?) but he doesn't describe it as a racist ideology belief.Pincrete (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So he didn't say that Black Supremacy was "equal to the racism of many whites"? He didn't believe that an ideology that stated "other races must kneel in submission" was not a racist position to hold? Brough87 (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, let's assume your interpretation of King's comments about the Nation of Islam are right. The strongest thing you can write in the article is "According to Martin Luther King Jr, black supremacy is a racist ideology", and that's a stretch. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is started to verge into WP:IDHT. While that source for MLK's position is fine, we'd need more before we include it. And if we include it, we'd have to ascribe the opinion to him. But, as others say, we need reliable sources to explicitly make any link or claim that Black Supremacy is racist. And to include it, we'd need a few of them per WP:DUE. If the position that Black Supremacy is racist is widely held by sources, it should be easy enough to find them (but from what I can tell it's not). EvergreenFir (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
He saw the NOI's belief in the demonization of the white race as unhealthy, dangerous, and equal to the racism of many whites These are Ogbar's words, and even if we accept them as a reliable summary of King's belief's, (which I am happy to do), they relate to the NoI. There may be something useful in King's/Ogbar's words, but not the edit you wish to make.Pincrete (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding the point I'm making. We have a source stating very clearly that the NOI's demonsation of whites was considered "equal to the racism of many whites" by MLK. I therefore suggest that viewpoints currently espoused that are similar (or the same) as those espoused by the NOI at the time of MLK are racist then, and are racist now. As well as this, it follows that MLK believed that the idea that "one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission." was and is also a racist position no matter the race of the perpetrator/holder of those beliefs. If anyone has a different interpretation of what the source is saying, I would very much like to hear it. As for whether the source is reliable or not, is it the consensus that this source is reliable? Brough87 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think any misunderstanding is on your part. Yes, the book is a reliable source, but it's a reliable source about what King said about the Nation of Islam in the 1950s. As I wrote, maybe if you squint, you could read it to say that King described black supremacy as racist. But it's not a reliable source for a claim that black supremacy is racist because the source (at least those parts I've seen) doesn't say that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

Your sources (to me) are reliable for King's opinion of NoI, but we are not in the business of 'divining' from that which are 'similar viewpoints' or what King would have thought of such. He might well have thought ALL forms black supremacy 'racist' if he had been asked and if he had lived.
If the position that Black Supremacy is racist is widely held by sources, it should be easy enough to find them, I'm sorry that's the bottom line. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm still yet to see an actual interpretation and engagement on your part(s) as to what the source is saying. If the views espoused by the NoI were considered racist by MLK, would the views not be racist if and when espoused by people now? If the belief that "one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission", is considered racist; would it not be the case that black supremacy, the belief that follows the aforementioned characterisation, is also racist? If we all accept that the source is both reliable and relevant to the point at hand, what is the interpretation of the statement and its logical conclusion? That MLK thought that only NoI's belief that "one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission" was racist, or that anybody who believed that held a racist position? The idea that his characterisation applied only to NoI as an organisation, rather than to the views they espoused seems to be a very odd argument to put forward. Brough87 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I have made myself very clear, King's remarks are highly critical of NoI and could be used on that article. It might be possible to squeeze something out of the text (not quite what Malik suggests above) for this page (attributed to King/Ogbar).
As I've said before, there is actually very little written about Black Sup and we had to rely mainly on the SPLC site who describe some orgs thus or describe them as having BlSup wings or tendencies or as using BlSup rhetoric, but no one actually defines the ideology belief. or describes its history, key figures, evolution or canonical texts. I'm not even fully persuaded that it IS an ideology, except in the everyday use of the word, or meaning a certain rhetorical stance. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Once again, neither of you are engaging with the source or the case being made against your position. Is it seriously the opinion of people on here that MLK was asserting that the NoI was racist based on the nature of the organisation itself, or was he saying that it was racist based on the views it espoused? If it is based on the views the NoI espoused, those views are racist. If those views are racist, my position is proved. Please respond directly to the case made against your position. Brough87 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If it seems like we're not "engaging", it's because your argument (as I understand it) -- if King thought the black supremacy of the Nation of Islam was racist, wouldn't he consider all black supremacy racist -- asks us to engage in impermissible original research and (to be honest) silly hypothesizing. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think what you think original research constitutes, is actually what it constitutes. NoI was the organisation that promoted Black Supremacy at the time of those statements (1959). As I asked previously, is it seriously your opinion that MLK asserted NoI's racism based on the nature of the organisation itself or on the views it espoused? It is very clear that MLK believed that the idea that "one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission" was a racist point of view to hold. It's quite clear that racial superiority of any kind was racist in his eyes, unless you dispute that? Brough87 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. What you are asking us to do is engage in analysis of what/why King said what he did about NoI and extrapolate from that how he would think about all Bl Sup and then treat our extrapolations of King's words as a reliable source for the adjective.
Nobody is seeking to dissuade from your conviction that BSup is necessarily 'racist', many readers would, and probably do come to the same conclusion. Nobody is suggesting that the article should say that 'Bl Sup is NOT racist'. It's just that - as an adjective - it won't go in the article until a balance of RS state it clearly. Nobody has found ONE yet. Why does the exclusion of this word in WP voice bother people so? Pincrete (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking you to tell me what the source is actually saying. Does MLK believe that the belief that "one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission" is a racist belief or not? When MLK says talks of the NoI as a "hate group arising in our midst which would preach a doctrine of black supremacy", what comments is he making about the idea black supremacy? I'm not asking for an extrapolation; you can see what he's saying about the ideas of the NoI. I shall further supplement this source with the following: Under the title “White Racism and Minority Racism”, of the book “Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches” by Professor Philip Q. Yang. Yang writes, “Racism is not singular. There are different kinds of racism, such as white racism and minority racism…Black supremacy can hardly constitute the threat that white supremacy does, nor can it be so easily rearticulated in the dominant discourse. Nonetheless, the powerful effect of white racism does not justify the development of racism against other minority groups or against whites.” (Source: pg 163-164, Yang P.Q. Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches: SUNY Press). We now have a situation that clearly defines black supremacy as racism and poses MLK's dislike of it. Brough87 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You're reading something into the source that isn't there. You also seem to be misusing the word "clearly". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Or perhaps I'm reading something you don't want to be there? Unless of course you believe that MLK thought that the nature of the NoI was racist, not the views it espoused. Brough87 (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
What I want is the same thing I asked for in my first contribution to this page: reliable sources that say black supremacy is a racist ideology. What do you want? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
“Racism is not singular. There are different kinds of racism, such as white racism and minority racism…Black supremacy can hardly constitute the threat that white supremacy does, nor can it be so easily rearticulated in the dominant discourse. Nonetheless, the powerful effect of white racism does not justify the development of racism against other minority groups or against whites.” (Source: pg 163-164, Yang P.Q. Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches: SUNY Press). It's in the previous comment ol chum. Brough87 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you highlight for me the sentence in there that says that black supremacy is a racist Ideology, because it looks to me like you're engaging in original research. Again. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
“Racism is not singular. There are different kinds of racism, such as white racism and minority racism…Black supremacy can hardly constitute the threat that white supremacy does, nor can it be so easily rearticulated in the dominant discourse. Nonetheless, the powerful effect of white racism does not justify the development of racism against other minority groups or against whites.” (Source: pg 163-164, Yang P.Q. Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches: SUNY Press) under the title of “White Racism and Minority Racism”. Brough87 (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Brough87, what text do you want this to support? Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I read that the first time you posted it, Brough87. I'm not ignoring you (which cannot be said of you, because you ignore everybody who disagrees with you), but I've asked you for a specific statement because the source doesn't say what you want it to say, and it won't say what you want it to say even if you copy and paste it here three or four times a day for the rest of your life. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If the sources listed are not pointing to racist characteristics of those beliefs, what are they actually saying then? You're very good at saying what they're not saying, you are yet to make a statement about what these sources point to. Brough87 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't object to some use of the quote (edited?), attributed and 'time-stamped' (if the author is reasonably notable). I would object strongly to extracting one word from it and inserting that one word in WP voice before the word ideology 'belief', which is not what the source says and is a single source anyway. Again Brough87, what text do you want this to support? and where,and who is the author? Pincrete (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've fully referenced the sources and haven't amended the quotes; they are freely available for you to judge yourself. As for the purposes of these quotes. I believe that the ideology of black supremacy is a form of racist belief and I am attempting to demonstrate that through the use of the above sources. Problem is, I'm still trying to actually have a discussion a bout the sources with those who disagree; unfortunately it's difficult to get even that far. Brough87 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that if used, we should edit the quote, I did not meant to imply you had done so. I was able to find the book, but not to read the relevant section. I repeat, if used, it should be attributed and its overall content fairly represented, not used to justify 'racist' being placed in front of ideology 'belief' in WP voice.
If you look back in the archives, you see editors consciously creating a 'mirror' of white supremacy, in good faith, but in my opinion mistakenly. Actually i have yet to come across a source that says that it is an ideology, or what that ideology is. Bl Sup is clearly a term used sometimes, but what exactly it is describing is unclear to me, or when a rhetorical position becomes an ideology. However, if we removed the definition we would be left with "BSup is a term which has been used to describe the following orgs", perhaps that would be better.Pincrete (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternate proposal for lead

How would the present editors feel about modifying the lede sentence to simply describe Black supremacy as a racial supremacist ideology? That should be factual enough to avoid any issues of OR while still allowing the reader to make up their own mind about whether they think racial supremacy is racist or not. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a little circular—like if we said that Heat was the quality of being hot—and repetitive—because we would then say what black supremacy is: the belief that black people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds, which is the very definition of racial supremacy—but I'm not opposed to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Malik, it seems bordering on a tautology and I doubt it would satisfy those who want the 'other word'.Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely a bit redundant. But that's often part and parcel to these article ledes, specially the more self explanatory subjects. I.e. "Earth science is the term for fields of science related to the planet Earth", "The American Civil War was a civil war in the United States", etc. If it does satisfy the problem, however, it can hopefully be overlooked in the interest of definition. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
“White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people. White supremacy has roots in scientific racism and often relies on pseudoscientific arguments.”
“Black supremacy or black supremacism is a racial supremacist belief that black people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds. The term has been used by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an American legal advocacy organisation, to describe several fringe religious groups in the United States.”
I can’t (won’t) argue that the first statement is incorrect (white supremists are in fact racist), but it strikes me as equally so racist to ignore the racist underpinings of other racial superiority groups. The fact that it has been debated before and is being debated again shows this issue was not resolved; Indeed, “pretending” (and that’s all it is) that blacks can’t be racist “because they’re black” is itself a racist attitude.
I thought Wikipedia’s position was to remain unbiased, not propagate the KKK’s ideology under the guise of parity (or whatever you’d like to “pretend” the cause is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection, nobody has argued that black people can't be racist. What we've said is that, in contrast to white supremacy, there are no reliable sources that describe black supremacy as racist. If you can find some, please let's discuss the question. But please don't attack a straw man. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

In white supremacy (wikipedia) it says its an racist ideology, while in black supremacy it says its an Racial supremacist belief. Hmmm? TRIGGERED MittnamnarJohn (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

See a previous RfC, no one has yet found a RS that describes Black supremacy as 'racist', for what ever reason that may be. Pincrete (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I've closed this edit request as there is no specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 00:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

US Slant

Fixing the US slant as per the discussion above. Black supremacy is part of Racial discrimination (segregation etc.) I added the most salient examples from Africa for the time being. Zezen (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Salience is determined by reliable sources. Original research doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The source you added absolutely did not support your claim that the Black Power movement was the first. Martin Luther King's use of the term could be included, but should be contextualized and attributed. Also, do not use Amazon links for refs, please. Grayfell (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, please collaborate with me on improving the content then, Grayfell, instead of just reverting this edit. More sources on the role of black supremacy ideology in ethnic cleansing etc. are already in the Black power and Racism in Africa obviously.

BTW, why are Amazon pages wrong for creating such a ref? (I have used them for other articles in WP). Zezen (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Let us also mention Black nationalism here: I discovered that "black supremacy" was used as a term already to describe such ideologies already in 1959. Zezen (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am reverting edits that do not appear to be an improvement to the article, and I am explaining why on the talk page. That's collaborating. The source you added did not support your added content, which isn't giving me anything to work with beyond that. If you have read sources used at other articles, go ahead and use them, but that's not optional. Black nationalism is already linked. If you have a source more clearly explaining the connection, let's see it.
Amazon links are sometimes used in refs, but there are multiple problems. Readers expect that links take them to the source, not a place they can buy the source. They also arbitrarily promote one shopping service over all others, and make it harder to filter spam (especially affiliate spam). The use of the cite template's ISBN field, or Template:ISBN, are much better for tracking down links or physical copies. It provides multiple clearly-labeled options, such as Amazon for multiple countries, Google Books, and Worldcat. This is explained at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_supremacy/Archive_5&oldid=1136568050"