Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 6

Nation of Islam
I restored Nation of Islam to the list of black supremacist groups, and will continue to do so every time NOI apologist "Malik Shabazz" reverts it.

The information I added is from the same source (7) that was there prior to my edit. The article has heretofore been misleading in the extreme by implying that the NOI abandoned its supremacist views in 1975. In fact, in 1975 W.D. Muhammad dismantled the NOI, replacing it with a new organization with a new name which was open to people of all races and intended to be more in line with mainstream Islam.

Farrakhan restored the racist pre-1975 teachings of the NOI when he reformulated the organization in the late 70s.

All of this information is in the source (7) that was already there prior to my edit; the article was deliberately misleading the reader as to what the source says about the NOI after 1975.

It appears that this is yet another instance of Malik Shabazz abusing his editorial privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost everything you've written is wrong.
 * The Nation of Islam was already listed as a group described as black supremacist. You added it to the list of groups so described by the SPLC, but it is the Associated Press that is cited. That's why the Nation of Islam isn't in the list like the other groups. (In other words, read the introduction before you add something to a list.)
 * The information you added was unsourced. The source cited is an obituary of Warith Deen Mohammed, and it only refers to the Nation of Islam's teachings until Mohammed became its leader. If you wish to write about its teachings under Louis Farrakhan, find a source that discusses them.
 * The fact that Mohammed repeatedly changed the name of the Nation of Islam after he became its leader and dropped its black supremacist teachings is off-topic in an article about black supremacy.
 * Finally, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and follow them. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question reads as follows:


 * "The Associated Press described the teachings of the Nation of Islam as having been black supremacist until 1975, when W. Deen Mohammed succeeded his father as its leader."


 * It cites source 7.


 * This is extremely misleading because it omits the critical fact contained in the same source (7) that:


 * "In 1977, Louis Farrakhan rejected Warith Deen Mohammed's leadership and re-established the Nation of Islam on the original model."


 * In other words, he restored it to the model characterized as black supremacist by the Associated Press.


 * Now, if your gripe is that restoring the Nation of Islam header suggests it is one of the groups listed by the SPLC as black supremacist, I have no problem leaving the header off. However, the other info, which is from the same source, that makes it clear that Farrakhan restored the views characterized by the Associated Press as black supremacist, is completely relevant and is going to be restored; otherwise the existing paragraph in question, is extremely misleading.


 * Furthermore, I am going to contact the SPLC and ask them to clarify whether they regard the NOI as black supremacist and if they do, and can provide a valid public reference indicating as much, the header will be restored as well. CannotFindAName (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * mentioning Farrakhan's role in re-establishing the NOI as a black supremacist group is perfectly fine. However, you've copied text directly from the source, which is a violation of our copyright guidelines. You will have to add the information in your own words. clpo13(talk) 23:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thank you for your input clpo13. CannotFindAName (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're smoking, CannotFindAName, but source #7 says simply "Minister Louis Farrakhan, who broke with Mohammed over the change, separately revived the old Nation of Islam." Nothing about Farrakhan's ideology in the source, which (as I wrote) is an obituary of Mohammed and has no reason to discuss Farrakhan. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Shabazz, I find your response very interesting. For one, in your prior reply to me you referred me to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, yet you begin your latest response with "I don't know what you're smoking", which is clearly both uncivil and a personal attack.

I can't say I'm surprised however, given your recent history (WP:ARBPIA3). In the course of that investigation you uttered such exemplars of civility and refraining from personal attack as saying "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."

As for the current dispute over the paragraph following the list of organizations described by the SPLC as black supremacist, I find your objections to be absurd.

The paragraph in dispute reads as follows:

"The Associated Press described the teachings of the Nation of Islam as having been black supremacist until 1975, when W. Deen Mohammed succeeded his father as its leader."

This is an extremely misleading representation of the citation, the relevant portions of which read as follows:

"When Mohammed's father, Elijah Muhammad, died in 1975, his son was named leader of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam, which promoted self-reliance and black supremacy, a belief that mainstream Muslims consider heretical.

Mohammed quickly abandoned that teaching and led the Nation toward orthodox Islam, emphasizing the faith's message of racial tolerance.

Minister Louis Farrakhan, who broke with Mohammed over the change, separately revived the old Nation of Islam."

It's clear from the article that "the change" referred to which Farrakhan broke with W. D. Mohammed over was the abandonment of the promotion of black supremacy; it's absurd to argue otherwise.

There is nothing in the cited article which indicates that the AP no longer considered the NOI black supremacist after 1975. This is a blatant POV informed spin on the facts reported in the cited article.

But even if for the sake of argument we were to accept your claim that in reviving the old NOI Farrakhan did not necessarily revive the promotion of black supremacy (clearly an example of "wiki-lawering"), there are no good reasons for not including the other information reported in the article (namely, that Farrakhan revived the old Nation of Islam). This information is critical to the question of whether the NOI forever abandoned promotion of black supremacy after 1975, and this obviously of relevance to the Black Supremacy article.

After all, it is your own position that this statement in and of itself says nothing about the ideology of the NOI as revived under Farrakhan.

Now, if you object to stating in the Wikipedia article that Farrakhan's revival of the old NOI constituted reviving promotion of black supremacy, I'm fine with leaving that out. However, there is no good reason why the facts reported in the cited article (i.e. that Farrakhan revived the old Nation of Islam) should not be included.

Readers are free to make of it what they will; you yourself claim that this fact says nothing about the ideology of the NOI under Farrakhan.

In its current form, the Wikipedia article implies that the AP no longer considered the NOI black supremacist after 1975; an interpretation which goes beyond what is actually stated in the article.

I think most would interpret the article as indicating that the promotion of black supremacy by the NOI was not abandoned in 1975, but rather was suspended during the brief period between Elijah Mohammed's death and Farrakhan's revival of the old NOI.

Maybe they wouldn't.

In any event, Wikipedia shouldn't "lead the witness" as it currently does into thinking that the AP did not consider the NOI black supremacist after 1975, but just state all of the relevant facts and allow readers to come to their own conclusions. CannotFindAName (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What's absurd is that you haven't read WP:No original research, which prohibits Wikipedia editors from inserting their own analysis of what sources say. It doesn't matter if it's your analysis, my analysis, or the way "most would interpret" the source. If it isn't in the source, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia article.
 * I've repeatedly told you that if you wish this article to say something about the Nation of Islam under Louis Farrakhan's leadership, find a reliable source that describes it as black supremacist. Instead, you found a headline. Not a source, but a headline. If it's such a well-known fact that the organization is black supremacist, surely it should be easy to find such a source. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"What's absurd is that you haven't read WP:No original research, which prohibits Wikipedia editors from inserting their own analysis of what sources say." It doesn't matter if it's your analysis, my analysis, or the way "most would interpret" the source. If it isn't in the source, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia article."

I am well aware of Wikipedia's no original research policy. There is nothing in my desired edit which constitutes original research. Indeed, I have been dusvuddnv3 this matter with administrator Clpo13 and Clpo13 has specifically told me the information regarding Farrakhan is suitable for the article (see his talk page). The information about Farrakhan is in the source.

In its current form however, the Wikipedia article's description of the cited AP article DOES include information not in the cited source. The cited source does not say that the AP ceased describing the NOI as black supremacist after 1975. That is a strained inference without support him the source.

"I've repeatedly told you that if you wish this article to say something about the Nation of Islam under Louis Farrakhan's leadership, find a reliable source that describes it as black supremacist."

The currently cited source (the AP article) DOES say something about the Nation of Islam under Louis Farrakhan's leadership:

"Minister Louis Farrakhan, who broke with Mohammed over the change, separately revived the old Nation of Islam."

I've already said to you that I'm perfectly content with simply pointing this fact out and not adding something like "Farrakhan resumed the promotion of black supremacy." In fact I specifically said we should just state the facts and let readers draw their own inferences.

"Instead, you found a headline. Not a source, but a headline."

You're actually talking about a separate matter here, which was my restoration of the Nation of Islam header with the sentence "The SPLC describes the Nation of Islam as black supremacist", citing an SPLC dispatch in which the headline describes the Nation of Islam as black supremacist. There is nothing about the fact that this information is in the headline of the dispatch that renders the citation an illegitimate source.

But you will notice I haven't yet attempted to restore any of the reverted edits in question; I'm awaiting additional feedback from administrators. I have already been informed that there is nothing wrong with including the information about Farrakhan in the cited AP source and am still awaiting a response about the cited SPLC dispatch (the one with the header you don't think qualifies as a source).

"If it's such a well-known fact that the organization is black supremacist, surely it should be easy to find such a source. Thank you."

It is a well known fact and I found a source indicating as much quite easily. But you objected to it in the grounds that the description of the organization as black supremacist was in the headline. It strikes me as absurd to argue that the SPLC doesn't consider the NOI black supremacist, it merely describes them as such in the headline of one of its press releases. But as I said, I'm not going to unilaterally and am awaiting feedback from other admins.

I'm also awaiting a response from the SPLC directly on this matter.

I've realized from this experience that there's no point in making edits that may provoke objection without first seeking feedback from admins. There's no point in making an edit that is going to be reverted.

You really have nothing to worry about since I won't be attempting any edits on the article in question without first consulting admin input. No point in playing if it's not by the rules

Prior to this the only edit I recall getting pushback on concerned whether the band Rush softened their sound. This is obviously a far more contentious and sensitive topic than the band Rush, lol.

But it's all good because I've learned a ton about how Wikipedia works that never knew before.

Best regards. CannotFindAName (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: There is an autocorrect typo in my prior reply; the word "dusvuddnv3" is supposed to be "discussing". I don't see any way of editing replies here to correct such typos in the original response. CannotFindAName (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PPS: Two more typos in my latest reply that need correction:

(1) "That is a strained inference without support him the source" was supposed to be "That is a strained inference without support IN the source".

(2) "I'm not going to unilaterally"was supposed to be "I'm not going to ACT unilaterally".

Is there a way to edit replies here to correct such typos? CannotFindAName (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I don't see any evidence of your having discussed the matter with clpo13 (who, by the way, is not an administrator). I see that clpo13 told you "I have no issue with adding that the SPLC describes NOI as black supremacist if it's supported by a source", but you seem to have missed the second part of the sentence.
 * Second, it remains clear to me that you still have not read WP:No original research. Please read the third and fourth sentences of that policy carefully:
 * [Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are to the topic of the article, and  the material being presented.
 * You think that "we should just state the facts and let readers draw their own inferences". To do that would be to engage in original research. As I keep telling you, if you wish to add a statement that the Nation of Islam is black supremacist, WP:NOR requires that you include a source that says that the Nation of Islam is black supremacist. Not one that leaves it for the reader to draw that inference. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"First, I don't see any evidence of your having discussed the matter with clpo13 (who, by the way, is not an administrator)."

It's on this very talk page up above: "mentioning Farrakhan's role in re-establishing the NOI as a black supremacist group is perfectly fine."

His only objection was to copying the text directly from the source:

"However, you've copied text directly from the source, which is a violation of our copyright guidelines. You will have to add the information in your own words."

As far as Clpo13 not being an admin, I'll take your word for it; he or she is nevertheless an accomplished and respected editor on here.

"I see that clpo13 told you "I have no issue with adding that the SPLC describes NOI as black supremacist if it's supported by a source", but you seem to have missed the second part of the sentence."

No, I didn't miss the second part of that sentence. Clpo13 is not referring here to the SPLC press release with the headline that describes the NOI as black supremacist; in fact I had not yet even found that SPLC press release. I looked for it and found it AFTER reading Clpo13's words here. Clpo13 has yet to weigh in on whether he or she thinks the press release in question is a valid citation.

"Second, it remains clear to me that you still have not read WP:No original research. Please read the third and fourth sentences of that policy carefully: [Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

Which is exactly what the paragraph describing the cited AP article does. It reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the source, namely that the AP did not describe the NOI as black supremacist after 1975.

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

The information regarding Farrakhan is in the exact same source currently cited, is directly related to the topic of the article, and directly supports the material presented.

"You think that "we should just state the facts and let readers draw their own inferences". To do that would be to engage in original research."

Stating the facts and letting readers draw their own inferences is not original research. That's what encyclopedias do.

"As I keep telling you, if you wish to add a statement that the Nation of Islam is black supremacist, WP:NOR requires that you include a source that says that the Nation of Islam is black supremacist. Not one that leaves it for the reader to draw that inference."

And as I keep telling you, I'm not interested in adding a statement the Nation of Islam is black supremacist. What I'm interested in doing is adding the information in the source regarding Farrakhan's revival of the old NOI. It's clearly relevant. CannotFindAName (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Malik, as a point of clarification, I want to further explain what I mean when I say I'm not interested in adding a statement stating that the Nation of Islam is black supremacist. I think to state that explicitly goes beyond what the source says, just as the implication that the AP did not consider the NOI black supremacist after 1975 goes beyond what the source says.

I'm interested in describing what the source says, and I think the information in the source regarding Farrakhan is an important aspect of what the source is saying about the Nation of Islam's teachings.

Here again are the relevant portions of the source in question:

" When Mohammed's father, Elijah Muhammad, died in 1975, his son was named leader of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam, which promoted self-reliance and black supremacy, a belief that mainstream Muslims consider heretical.

Emphasized racial tolerance Mohammed quickly abandoned that teaching and led the Nation toward orthodox Islam, emphasizing the faith's message of racial tolerance. He had been a friend of Malcolm X, who abandoned the Nation to embrace mainstream Islam before he was assassinated in 1965.

Minister Louis Farrakhan, who broke with Mohammed over the change, separately revived the old Nation of Islam."

The article states that Nation of Islam promoted self-reliance and black supremacy at the time of Elijah's death.

The article then states that "Mohammed quickly abandoned that teaching " (referring to W.D. Mohammed).

The article then states that "Minister Louis Farrakhan, who broke with Mohammed over the change, separately revived the old Nation of Islam."

Now, it seems pretty clear to me that what the source is saying here is that in reviving the old NOI, Farrakhan restored the promotion of black supremacy. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise.

But how I see it or interpret it has no place in the Wikipedia article. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be of the opinion that this does not necessarily mean that Farrakhan restored the promotion of black supremacy. How you interpret the source also has no place in the Wikipedia article.

But the fact that Farrakhan revived the old NOI is obviously a relevant fact from the cited source.

All I'm interested in doing is adding this fact (that Farrakhan revived the old NOI) to the Wikipedia article. I'm not interested in adding a statement that says that Farrakhan restored the promotion of black supremacy.

Perhaps this has not been heretofore clear. I honestly don't understand why you would object to this or think it would represent original research.

Let me then here present for you what I would like the section of the article in dispute to be, and you can then tell me what if anything you find objectionable.

First, here is the section of the article in dispute in its current form:

"The Associated Press described the teachings of the Nation of Islam as having been black supremacist until 1975, when W. Deen Mohammed succeeded his father as its leader."

Now, here is my proposed revision:

"The Associated Press described the teachings of the Nation of Islam as having been black supremacist under the leadership of Elijah Mohammed. When Elijah Mohammed died in 1975, he was succeeded by his son, W. Deen Mohammed, who abandoned that teaching, leading the Nation towards a more conventional interpretation of Islam which emphasized the faith's message of racial tolerance.

Minister Louis Farrakhan did not approve of the new direction the organization had taken under the leadership of W. Deen Mohammed and separately revived the old Nation of Islam."

Does that work for you?

On another matter, I would like to know if there is a way to edit comments on this talk page. Not just to correct typos. Assuming we can come to an agreement here in how to resolve our dispute I would be happy to remove my prior references to WP:ARBPIA; I just don't know how to do so if indeed one can.

I've never really been involved in such a contentious discussion on Wikipedia before. It's been a learning experience (a very valuable and interesting one in most respects). This isn't a discussion thread on a blog. There are rules and regulations and well defined procedures and guidelines with respect to how to go about a dispute regarding an article's content.

If I knew what I know now when I first delved into this dispute I would have approached it a lot differently.

Despite the unfortunate acrimony at times I must say I have found some of your comments very informative so far as how Wikipedia works and I genuinely appreciate that.

What exactly is an "admin" on here anyway? Are you an admin?

It's all very interesting.

I would appreciate any pointers to information regarding things like this (i.e."What is an admin? How do you know who is an admin? How do you contact an admin? What other categories of "Wikipedia editors with stripes" are there? etc.).

Best regards. CannotFindAName (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , on your last point there, see WP:ADMIN. The easiest way to tell who is an admin is to look at their userpage - most administrators will have a little box that says "this user is a wikipedia administrator," and at the very bottom of their page you will see the category "wikipedia administrators."  In general, though, it's not really relevant who is or isn't an administrator in a situation like this - an admin's opinion doesn't count any more or less than another editor's, and they would only use their extra admin "tools" (like the ability to block someone from editing) if there were serious rule violations involved, and if they themselves weren't WP:INVOLVED in the debate.  Admins aren't the final arbitors or what goes in an article - we use WP:CONSENSUS and dispute resolution to decide that.
 * Personally I think the key point here is that in this article we can only discussion NOI as a "black supremacist" organization using sources that actually describe it as such. Remember that people can always click the link/go to Nation of Islam and read all about the group's history there - essentially, you need to find a source which says "Louis Farakkhan's version of the Nation of Islam is black supremacist" (or something to that effect) before we can talk about including the kind of content that you tried to add. This might be difficult as most sources describe NOI as a black nationalist rather than a black supremacist organization, which is why the article only mentions the group briefly and attributes the claim to a specific source. I know this can seem frustrating/counter-intuitive sometimes, especially to people who are new to wikipedia, but it is one of the project's bedrock policies - no original research.
 * Finally, please try to keep the length of your replies down, and avoid interspersing quite so many quotes from the person you're replying to into your posts, it makes it very hard for others to read/catch up on the debate. See WP:TLDR.  I hope this is helpful.  Fyddlestix (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Extremely helpful information, Fyddlestix, thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to provide that it.

Regarding Farrakhan's version of the NOI, I'm not necessarily interested in adding a statement to the article saying Louis Farrakhan's version of the NOI is black supremacist. I'm primarily interested in simply modifying the paragraph in the article which cites the AP article along the lines I indicated in my last response to Malik Shabazz. In fact I'd appreciate hearing what your thoughts are with respect to that proposed edit. That proposed edit doesn't include any statement to the effect that Farrakhan's version of the NOI is black supremacist. I do think however that the information regarding Farrakhan's revival of the old NOI is relevant information.

I did previously make another edit (since reverted) that did say that Farrakhan's version of the NOI is described as the SPLC as black supremacist, but that edit was reverted on the grounds that the description of Farrakhan's version of the NOI as black supremacist is only in the headline of the source cited (which was an SPLC press release). I haven't attempted to restore that edit because I haven't received any feedback from editors regarding the validity or invalidity of Mr. Shabazz's objection.

Thanks again for the info. CannotFindAName (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the SPLC does explicitly say that the NOI has a "theology of innate black superiority over whites" in its page listing the NOI as a designated hate group: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/nation-islam 74.71.233.250 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It does, and it also speaks of NoI's leaders using "racist rhetoric". Either of these descriptions/criticisms/comments might belong on the NoI page, but neither states EXPLICITLY that NoI is "supremacist" nor "racist". Pincrete (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with saying that a "theology of innate black superiority over whites" is "a racial supremacist belief that black people are superior to people of other races", i.e., black supremacist (at least according to the first sentence of this article). If there's any real difference between the two phrases, it's too fine for me to discern it. No, we can't say the SPLC called the NOI "black supremacist". But we can add to the end of our paragraph about the NOI that in (whatever year the SPLC brief on the NOI was written or added that phrase), the SPLC described the NOI's teachings as a "theology of innate black superiority over whites". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Malik Shabazz, I think hairs are being split that are really much too fine for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What caused me to hesitate was the word 'theological', maybe that doesn't change the conclusion, but does change the logic (God made us better/loves us more - most religions have some element of "we are God's special favourites"). But I wouldn't have a problem with using the original phrase, without interpretation on our part. Pincrete (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Black supremacy or Blacks fighting against white racism? No such thing as Black supremacy
Can someone please explain to me how Blacks fighting for their liberation and equality against a white racist supremacist structure make them Black supremacists? All the black organisations listed here are and were created to combat the white supremacist structure and liberate blacks in one way or another. Despite the fact that I don't take many of these organisations serious, I see no reason for this article's creation. This article is a joke, created by a group of insecure white Wikipedians as a tit for tat in order to prevent people looking at the real problem : white supremacy (an oxymoron in itself). There is no such thing as black supremacy. It is merely ruse. 2.27.120.93 (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Deletion discussion here, whilst 'black supremacy', may be used rhetorically by critics, and there may be - or have been - black leaders who used 'supremacist' rhetoric themselves at times, there are editors here who are sympathetic to your argument. Fairly obviously, it is the case that if you are NOT a member of the dominant group in any society, it matters little whether you think that your group is better, and OUGHT TO dominate. At what point do we take someone literally who thinks that Welshmen, Texans, Frenchmen (or women?), whoever are the "greatest people on earth". I guess the answer is when they start to behave as though non-Welsh-etc should automatically serve and obey them. We as editors here are limited though to what WP:RS have said on a subject, rather than our own opinions. Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Original Research, factual accuracy, synth and one main source. Also, is this article a list?
I'm surprised this article was not deleted when it was last taken to AFD. My first question is: Is this a stand-alone lists? If it is, I'm not seeing any of the guidelines being adhered to. However, I'm more concerned about the WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, factual inaccuracies presented in this article, and the almost single source (the wonderful Southern Poverty Law Center) who have provided no sources or their research methods. Sorry, but even sources have to cite sources or tell us their research methods. Some of us do not live in the US, and just because an American organisation says so does not mean we have to abide by it on Wikipedia. That in itself calls into question the notability of this article as not receiving significant coverage to merit a stand-alone article (or list). Ignoring SPLC's expansive claims for a minute, I have gone through the other sources in this article. The article states:
 * "Several fringe groups have been described as either holding or promoting black supremacist beliefs.  A source described by historian David Mark Chalmers as being "the most extensive source on right-wing extremism" is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an American nonprofit organization that monitors all kinds of hate groups and extremists in the United States."

The editor then went on to cite David Mark Chalmers (2003). Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 188. ISBN 0-7425-2311-X. However, there is nothing on that page that talks about Black supremacy/supremacist. In fact, there is nothing in that book that made any reference to "Black supremacy" or "Black supremacist". Although the page in question (p. 188) did mention the SPLC, there is nothing on that page or book that supports the bold claims made above - which is the subject of this article. There are several references in that book on White supremacy, but nothing on Black supremacy. The book made one reference to "Black separatist", and that can be found on page 181. I don't know about anybody else, but to me, "Black separatist" is totally different from "Black supremacist." I have gone through the corresponding Wiki articles but found that they are merely translations of this page and almost all of them have even fewer sources or no sources at all. Another sources cited for the above bold claim is Brett A. Barnett (2007). Untangling the web of hate: are online "hate sites" deserving of First Amendment Protection?. Cambria Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-934043-91-2. However, there is nothing on that page, not even on that book that used the term "Black supremacy" or "Black supremacist." The term used is "Black separatist" just like the first source above. Again, several references to White supremacy but nothing on Black supremacy/supremacist. Other than the above two references used in this article, all the other refs came from the SPLC website, with the other ref from the Associated Press (MSNBC) - a copy of which I found on NBC. Only the multiple SPLC refs and the NBC article mentioned anything about Black supremacy. I am surprised how experience editors have overlooked these issues and allowed this OR and non-notable article to stand for couple of years. I have a flight to catch in few hours time, but time permitting, I will be putting this article back to AFD.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Senegambianamestudy, many of the editors who reluctantly 'rescued' this article from its previous non-neutral, WP:OR state are probably sympathetic to many of your arguments (I for one supported deletion). However, this is all that is left after the clean up - a general definition and the attributed claims from SPLC that these orgs are, or have been - to one extent or another 'supremacist' in their beliefs or rhetoric. Pincrete (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. If this has been here for years we can wait for your flight issue to resolve itself before tackling this. Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no citation from reliable sources for the definition used. The lead credited the SPLC but provided no citation. Although we do not usually bother with inline citations in article leads, this article is controversial and the definition very new - provided by no other than the single source (SPLC) who invented it (if it even invented it), and not evident in any of the reliable scholarly sources cited. That is just one of the multiple issues I have with this article. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not racism?
Here's some additional sources: The SPLC article linked on this page has "racist" as the first word in the headline, WaPo which links to this study and Viceland, and Washington Examiner that links to a Gallup poll. Is the suggestion that it is impossible for black people to be racist? How does this comport with WP:NPOV?-Terrorist96 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The definition of white supremacy is "The ideology which holds that the white race is superior to all others."
 * The definition of black supremacy is "The ideology which holds that the black race is superior to all others."
 * The definition of racism is "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
 * The white supremacy page correctly identifies it as a racist ideology.
 * The black supremacy page does not identify it as such, and the racism template has been removed from this page, and the template itself has had the link to this page removed as well.


 * Please read WP:V and WP:NOR. Now please find a reliable source that says black supremacy or black supremacist ideology is racist. I asked more than two years ago and despite what I can only assume are editors' best efforts, nobody (including me—I have a lot of books about Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, and other black supremacists) has been able to find any. Maybe you'll be successful where others have failed. We've found sources that say individuals or organizations or their teachings are racist, but nothing that says black supremacy per se is racist. (If you're interested, you can read Archives 4 and 5 of this page for history.)


 * Does that mean that black people can't be racist? Only if you like to jump from statement A to conclusion Z. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not original research. I included many links. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and this is a pretty obvious violation. This page is already "Part of a series on Discrimination". Again, I'll repeat the definition of racism according to Oxford Dictionary. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior (emphasis added). We don't need a source that says word for word for what is already obvious according to the dictionary.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is another definition of racism. Think about it.  "Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations, and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. It can take several forms, including representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic." Carptrash (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And what WP:RS dictionary did you get that from? Thoughtco (whatever that is)? Even assuming your definition is true, it does not negate the definition provided by Oxford. I can see that this is quickly going nowhere so I have opened a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard here.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It will continue to go nowhere until you do what I asked of you, which is what Wikipedia policy requires of you: produce a reliable source that says black supremacy is racist. It's that simple. None of the "sources" you cite mention black supremacy, so using them to reach your intended conclusion is impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When editors start talking about dictionary definitions and textbook cases, they're almost always engaging in original research. If it's so obvious and widely known that black supremacy is racist, it should be a cinch to find a reliable source that says so. So instead of arguing policy, why not just find such a source? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A reliable source? What about the BBC? Is that relaible enough for you? "black separatist groups have used a more racist and militant approach." 46.135.10.53 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Black supremacist is not the same as Black seperatist and "a more racist approach" is not the same as being inherently racist, just as friendlier is not the same as friendly. The source also says "Many black separatist "hate groups" are rooted in racism and anti-Semitism, according to (SPLC) .... these type of hate groups are different from typical white supremacy groups like the Klu Klux Klan, in that they are formed in reaction to societal white oppression". You can't cherry-pick the parts of the source that you like, she is saying these hate groups are rooted in racism, (not quite the same as racist) but exist as a reaction. But again this is talking about 'separatist' groups, so can't be used. Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not racist?
User:Marshan3q the simple answer to your question here"if white supremacy's article lists it as racist, why don't we list this as racist, too?" is that RS's don't describe it thus. Whatever more complex reasons there may be for that, (and believe me there have been plenty of discussions here on that subject), WP guidelines say we go with RS, not by 'counter-balancing' what is on the white supremacy article. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a double standard, but you do you fam Marshan3q (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It isn't a double-standard on our part if we rely on RS for both. Personally I find the label unhelpful in both instances - since it is more informative to say WHAT is recially prejudiced about the beliefs of either, rather than simply apply a 'label'. One of the reasons I think that RS do not use the term is that 'racist' has different meanings in ordinary speech and in 'sociology'. In ordinary speech a 'racist remark' is one that is offensive about another racial group, regardless of who either the speaker or the target is, in academia 'racism' tends to be used only of the dominant group(s) towards the weaker group(s), ie those who actually hold the power to enforce their racial beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Racism in its original sense was defined (perhaps facetiously) as showing favour to members of one ethnicity or phenotype above all others; and not necessarily being abusive of the membership of others -- though there is no attempt to conceal or deny that the latter outcome tended to predominate. Furthermore, that particular ethnicity or phenotype was, of course, white (i.e., Caucasoid). Black supremacy can therefore be viewed as a (perfectly understandable) cultural reaction to White supremacy. Nuttyskin (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Royal Parchment Scroll of ...
If only for an early (1920s) occurrence of the term in Black cultural awareness, ought not this article at least reference the Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy?

Fitz Balintine Pettersburg is often described as a proto-Rastafarian preacher, and an influence on later Abrahamic and Millenarian philosophies. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (2nd nomination) - debunking of sources
This article passed its 2nd AfD nomination. Must be a cat with a long life. However all the sources cited including others have been debunked in the last nomination (and above). Please see Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (2nd nomination) before adding the same sources. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Black separatist organizations navbox at foot of article
Firstly, separatism and supremacism are not synonymous, I suspect that there are -or have been historically - many groups which believed in separatism, but not supremacism. While not all 'our' groups are necessarily separatist. Secondly the navbox lists only the same groups as this article (ie those described as supremacist - or using supremacist rhetoric by SPLC).

Should the navbox be removed and/or renamed? I'm posting here because others have more knowledge than I of the US-scene.

The navbox appears to have been here since time immemorial and may be simply missed 'clear-up'. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Until July, the template was called "Black supremacist organizations". It was moved and revised, and as you indicated, it's probably inappropriate for this article now. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How to use cleanup tags
see Template messages/Cleanup which says "Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below. Tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion."

An example: states

Usage First add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. Then place  at the top of the disputed article. If the talk page discussion is not in a section named "Disputed", use (for a talk page section named "Disputed information", use  in the article). If there is no talk page, the tag won't refer to it (in which case it's recommended to consider whether the tag should be there, since there is no reason given). Articles using this template as shown above are placed into Category:Accuracy disputes.

We also have a content guideline on this at Accuracy dispute which again calls for a specific section on the talk page.

Template says it should be removed if it isn't obvious or explained:

So, start sections for each one, then add the tag. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given.
 * Okay! Thank you Doug. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of tags
User:Senegambianamestudy, I was quite right to remove the tags on the article here. There is no ongoing discussion here about the issues, the AfD voted keep, and you are not instituting any processes (RfC's or similair) to remedy - what you see as - the faults. Tags are not meant to be permanent 'badges of shame' simply because one editor doesn't like an article, but has failed to get it deleted.

For what it is worth - I also think the article is fairly crap, merely a list of groups which SPLC have described as espousing Bl Sup rhetoric or ideology. The only good things which can be said about this article are that is much better than what existed before AfD 1, and probably better than any article which would be created if this one were deleted by someone who would think "we have an article on white supremacy, why not on the black equivalent?" A logic that ignores the fact that whilst Wh Sup is a much studied and potent force in US politics (and to a lesser extent other countries' politics), Bl Sup is a marginal force - little more than an occasional rhetorical position among fringe groups, though something that probably "scares the shit out of white folks". Thus your 'notability' argument I agree with, though not necessarily all others.

I have little interest in the subject, which to me is little more than an ocassionaly used term, (barely even defined since its use is deemed self-evident), not a significant (or significantly studied) phenomenon. I suspect other editors, apart from myself, only watchlist this article because they know it is an occasional WP:OR and PoV magnet, and occasionally the subject of niave editing.

You should actively take steps to remedy faults if you want the tags to remain - otherwise they are futile and should be removed.

BTW, finally, please don't give orders to other editors in your edit reasons - it is needlessly rude and counter-productive unless you have the power/authority to back them up or unless the other editor was clearly at fault (which I was not I believe). Pincrete (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me how does one improve an article which fails our notable guidelines in the first place - coupled with WP:SYNTH and original research? I asked that question when I put up this article for deletion but none of those voting keep answered that. See discussions above: Original Research, factual accuracy, synth and one main source. Also, is this article a list? Also, my editor summary was not an order, but a direct reference to our policies. You do not remove tags when the issues discussed in the article's talk page have not been addressed. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No I can't explain how to improve the article - because it is possibly/probably unimprovable. Not enough has been written about the subject to make much of an article. I don't agree about WP:OR - single source is self-evident. But having twice passed the AfD 'notability' test, the matter is out of your or my hands. I restrict my activity here to watching. I said from day one that I understood your frustration, but tags shouldn't be used as a permanent 'badge of shame', because you and/or I think the article is low grade. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If "not enough has been written about the subject to make much of an article", then surely it is too soon and therefore fails our notability guidelines. In any case, has applied the relevant tags. Thanks Doug. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019
I’m writing to Wikipedia to amend the story of black statements as violence, molesting, financial violations compared to white supremacy Wikipedia statements. That’s my arguments. Bade047 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This entire article is using the SPLC as it's only source
Hello, this article exclusively uses the SPLC as a source and that doesn't seem to be scholarly or NPOV. Even the other two book sources ("Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement" and "Untangling the Web of Hate: Are Online "hate sites" Deserving of First Amendment Protection?") are only provided because they list the SPLC as a reliable source. "Black supremacy" as a term itself is rather controversial. I just wanted to make a note of that. Oh and the MSNBC article doesn't work for me. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I doubt that you know why the two books were used, but one was published by an academic press, Chalmers published by a reliable press and also has at least one book published by Duke University, I fixed the MSNBC link (it doesn't mention the SPLC). Doug Weller  talk 14:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller read the sources. Neither makes any mention of "black supremacy" and the only thing relevant to the article is that they both mention the SPLC Intelligence Report (the only other sources besides MSNBC) as RS. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, User:Pokerplayer513, I'd assumed you would have mentioned that so I didn't check. Do a Google News search for the phrase, plenty of sources there. A quick scan of GBooks and Scholar turns up, , , , . Apologies if one of those is a duplicate. Anyway, you get the point. There are plenty of sources that can be used to improve the article. As you are interested in it and don't presumably have a watch list of 17,000 pages not including their talk pages, and don't have all the other responsibilities I have, it would be great if you could work on this article. Doug Weller  talk 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the sources. I'll see what I can do, I just wanted to bring it some attention as well. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bilderberers

 * The Bilderberger reference should be removed. A search on the SPLC site showed no direct result, and the Bilderberger's own Wikipedia article does not put them near "Black Supremacy" anyway.Westernsun (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added the correct source. The SPLC's website search is not great, but the reference does exist. The Bilderbergers are not part of black supremacy, the source is saying that the Nuwaubian belief system includes conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Original research removed from the article
The following section was added to the article today:

History Black supremacy has historically been viewed as a reaction against white supremacy and sees the oppression of black people as a reason white people need to be removed from power. It was also associated with Marcus Garvey and the Back-to-Africa movement.

It's original research and it's complete bollocks. I can't say whether black supremacy has or hasn't been viewed as a reaction to white supremacy, but the first source (accessible here if you're in the U.S.) is the summary of a Rastafarian prophetic book, not a summary of what historians have to say about black supremacy. The second source doesn't say that black supremacy was associated with Garvey and the Black-to-Africa movement. It says that "black messianic mythology" was often associated with black supremacy, and that "in some cases, the members [of the new religious movements] identified with Marcus Garvey and rejected their American identity."

You can't make stuff up out of whole cloth, put a footnote at the end, and add it to an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019
White supremacy is listed as a racist belief while black supremacy is not in the opening line. Please correct this as they are both forms of racist belief and denoting black supremacy as simply a racial supremacy belief without the same pejorative term used for white supremacy, i.e. racist, gives the distinct impression of an endorsement of black supremacy by Wikipedia. Ideally it would be nice to see Wikipedia acknowledge that no race is superior to another and any belief to the contrary is racism, regardless of what group it comes from. 71.208.36.197 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: They're not equivalent. See past discussions here and on Talk:White supremacy  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear EvergreenFir, your own links lead to this [|1] (Point 3) which clearly comes to the conclusion that
 * having "racist" in one article while not having it in the other is not acceptable.
 * There are arguments to remove it from both(every) article of this kind as well as arguments to insert it ("racist") in the lead line in every kind of this article.
 * Black Supremacy is by definition racist. It is not necessary that white and black supremacy are equivalent in other aspects. They are well comparable in the racist aspect.
 * If you however do not think black supremacy is racist (while white supremacy is) then you should not be able to edit those kind of articles. A PhD on sociology with gender topics triggers some strong ::prejudices in me, that remind of the people saying "There is no racism against whites! There is no sexism against men! (it cannot exist)".
 * Of course that is just nonsense.
 * Closing a well reasoned edit request with a simple "it is not equivalent", linking to discussions that come to the conclusion that an incoherence between those kind of articles is bad is just not the ::correct behaviour for an editor. Show some objectivity please. On your discussion on point 27 at the link (1) you also neglected the views of other users with the plain statement "They [the arguments] were ::utterly unconvincing" to enforce your own. Also on the "poll" after point 27 I count more votes for option or choice 1. Now it still stands as "is the racist belief" (which would be choice 2)...;
 * This is clearly deminishing Wikipedia's respectability to an outstanding observer like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.130.160.189 (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is clearly deminishing Wikipedia's respectability to an outstanding observer like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.130.160.189 (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * IP, wikipedia articles are based on WP:RS, not on your, my or 'Fir's' opinion. Despite watching this article for 2-3 years, during which many people have argued simarly to yourself, no one has yet found a reliable source that says Bl Sup is racist. There may be many reasons why this is true, including that 'racist' has a more precise definition for professionals than in common speech - but it is true. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you find reliable sources, please feel free to reopen this edit request.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019
Change racial supremacist in introduction to simply racist. And add to the same sentence in the end and therefore should be dominant over them. This is to complete the explanatory introduction and also correlate the article with the White supremacy article. Alrighty185 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also see talk page archives here and on Talk:White supremacy.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be common knowledge that Black supremacy indeed has shown its existence in history. Since you insist on being provided a reliable source, here is a link where I will refer you to the last sentence in the general introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power

Again I refer to the changes I stated earlier and would appreciate they be made this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrighty185 (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. --MrClog (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear respected editors
Mention the melanin theory to the info Mittjohn11 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mittjohn11, I've added as a 'see also'. It is too tangentially connected to be in the main text.Pincrete (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Black supremacy is a racist ideology
This page needs more work and more info added. This is important if not apart of wiki. And my edits should be supported not tarnished Mittjohn11 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Instead of edit-warring something which has been discussed dozens of times already, please present here for our discussion, on this talk page, a reliable source which describes this as racist. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Supremacy needs more information and detail
Black Supremacy needs more information and detail and needs to be known as a racist ideology because stems from the racist belief that black people are superior to non-black people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.143.192 (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to make specific, detailed suggestions for changes in content, cited to reliable sources. Generalized, non-specific grumbling about the article is not productive. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Racism
Black people can be just as racist as white people. Any race can be racist. This wikipedia page should not be deleted.

Footballfan90 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with "supremacy", that is not a reliable source, and that source doesn't mention "black supremacy" at all. Please review Introduction to deletion process and then, if you still have comments, post them to Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (3rd nomination). Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That site is about as far from a reliable source as I've ever seen. It is a totally ideological attempt at an encyclopedia about their political opponents. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at it closely until now. I knew the David Horowitz Freedom Center was bigoted, but I didn't realize it was nakedly racist.
 * The source is so bad, it tips-the-hand that this issue isn't really about describing "black supremacy". Instead, it's an attempt to justify white supremacy. This article is not a counterpoint to white supremacy, because that would be false balance, and it trivializes the entire issue. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the web link -- no need. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Article relies almost entirely on one source : Southern Poverty Law Center.
This article relies almost entirely on one source: The wonderful "Southern Poverty Law Center." If this article is suppose to be notable as proclaimed, then surely there should be plenty of reliable and verifiable sources discussing the topic in depth without need for original research or SYNTH as per our notability guidelines. Just go through the article and you will see that almost all the sources comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center. I am tagging this article for mainly one source. I'm sure those who believe this article passes GNG should have no problem finding several other reliable and verifiable sources that discusses the topic in depth, i.e. "Black supremacy", and not some random Black organization in the USA with no power to effect any change on the lives of the majority White population of the US. The reason why this racially charged article is so short in size and mainly a list of African American organizations which we already have articles for is because there is few to none respectable scholars talking about this topic other than the wonderful Southern Poverty Law Center (a US based organization). Hence why almost all the sources are from that organization. There is no purpose to this article, and any relevant information could have been discussed on the listed organizations' articles. I have raised this issue before and will continue to raise it. This whole article was written to counteract our White supremacy article. Nothing more! Nothing less! This is why the article is so short, and mainly a list of organizations with no power whatsoever to shake the American structure, and mainly rely on one source. I am tagging this article for mainly one source. Surely if one believes the topic is notable one should have no problem finding other reliable sources discussing the topic in depth other than our wonderful friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Also, this article is suppose to be about "Black supremacy", not judy about "Black American supremacy". This article is therefore mainly about the USA, and does not represent a worldview of the topic. I will therefore by tagging it for world. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * How would these issues be resolved so the tag can be removed? What specific actions can be taken to resolve this?
 * Judging by the article, the term is most-prominently used by the SPLC. The article would benefit from more sources, but this is true of almost every article on Wikipedia. We have many articles on terms which are coined or popularized by just one organization, and why wouldn't we?
 * One of the article's sources is this AP article, which uses the term, but doesn't mention the SPLC. This demonstrates that the term does have at least some weight outside of the SPLC. It's reasonable to think that Wikipedia's readers will want to know what it means when they come across it.
 * If the concept is mainly discussed in the US, it can still be encyclopedically significant without having "America" in the title. What examples do you have to show that the term has usage outside of the US? We would need a specific reason to think this is an issue, otherwise this appears to be attempting to prove a point. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To the contrary. You have just demonstrated why the notability of this article is questionable. However, that's an argument for another day. Well, just! Our referencing policy is pretty clear. We cannot rely almost entirely on a single source to reference an entire article. You ask what can be done, the answer is simple. Find other reliable and verifiable sources that discusses "Black supremacy" in depth as per our notability guidelines other than the Southern Poverty Law Center. Once you've done that, add them to the article. Thereafter, I'm sure no one will have objection to removing the tag. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If readers wants to find out what the term means, they can look elsewhere. By simply relying almost exclusively on Southern Poverty Law Center to source this article, it calls into question its notability especially when we factor in that few to no scholar has written in depth about this subject. Surely if there were plenty of reliable secondary sources discussing the topic in depth, they would have been used in the article. The reason why the Southern Poverty Law Center is the main source used is because they are one of few talking about it. Maybe it is too soon etc, but an article of this size (despite its lenght) and topic cannot rely almost exclusively on a single source. As for the worldview tag, the article is using the generic word "black" in reference to black people. It is not talking about Black Americans only but black people worldwide or at least implies that. If this article was titled "Black American supremacy" or "African American supremacy" (provided there are plenty of RS discussing that topic) and gave the scope of the article in the lead, I would not have bothered to add the "world" tag. However, it isn't. Since I can't even find any reliable sources establishing notability other than the Southern Poverty Law Center articles used in this article, I can't even expand or improve it if I wanted to, because I will have nothing to work with. Since you believe this article is notable and passes GNG, and there are plenty of RS discussing the topic in depth other than the Southern Poverty Law Center, it is your responsibility to prove us wrong and find and add those sources in order to expand and improve the article. As the article stands at the moment, all we see is mainly one source and we can't source our articles like that. Add other reliable sources discussing the topic in depth then remove the relevant tag. I don't have a problem with that. As for world, rename the article and/or define the scope in the lead then remove the tag. I don't have a problem with that either. Failing that, you need to support your position with reference to reliable sources and our policies as to why this is a universal or generic term as used here rather than specific to a particular ethnic group in a particular country. Hope that helps. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The contrary? The contrary of what? It appears you're making some assumptions about me which are not accurate, but regardless, I have added several sources, including one specifically about the terms usage outside of the USA.
 * If you want to discuss whether or not the article should be deleted, do that, instead. You've raised good points about notability, but as you say, that is its own issue which should be discussed separately.
 * I did not say this article passes GNG, and I did not say there are plenty of sources. As I said, the article could (still) benefit from more sources. My understanding of WP:RS is that the SPLC is usable for this content because it is independent of "black supremacy" and has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. For this reason, this doesn't seem like a serious issue to me.
 * This article is about "black supremacy" according to how imperfect sources describe it. If the concept is primarily discussed as it relates to the US, so be it. The article should reflect the topic according to sources, not according to our personal understanding of the concept. In other words, what the word implies to you is not, by itself, enough to make th globalization tag appropriate. The article should have more sources, but we need sources to decide this lacks a global perspective. If I understand you, you do not think the topic is notable at all. It doesn't make sense to me that you are asking for the article to be expanded to cover a perspective which you don't believe even exists. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the main and only source is the SPLC, then perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. You seem to be advocating for its importance (or notability). Just because something is important to you does not deserve inclusion. Those who share your view where the same ones that wanted this article kept. They canvassed each other pushing their Eurocentric POV and merely created this fake article to counteract our White supremacy article. White supremacy is notable hence why there are loads of reliable and independent sources about the subject. Black supremacy is a delusion and a non-notable subject, hence why advocates for this foolish article had to plaster SPLC articles/links to this entire article as it appears they are the only ones discussing this thing. If this article was notable in the first place, I would not have given a damn! But everyone who where spewing nonsense knows damn well this pathetic article was never notable in the first place hence why they had to rely almost entirely on a single source. I don't give a damn about America. I'm not American and don't live there. All I give a damn about is our policy. I am not removing those tags unless you or others advocating for it bring reliable sources on the this talk page for evaluation with respect to the lenght of this article - and not another SPLC article/link. I am not going to be engaging in another ruse. I've already mentioned the reasons for the tags inline with our policies and what can be done. The ball is on your/their court. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Senegambianamestudy, you ascribe motives to others with no idea as to who they are - even less why they did what thay did. I largely agree with your substantive point however, as did most of the editors who attempted to clean up this article a few years ago. Bl Sup is not the subject of much study and is largely a rhetorical term, not a substantive political force. You are arguing, (pointlessly), with people who share many of your views. But this article has survived at least two deletion discussions and would probably survive a third. SPLC is largely talking about very fringe orgs that employ bl sup rhetoric to a greater or lesser extent. It is reliable to the extent it is used. Pincrete (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article clearly has sources independent of the SPLC. Google books has a few reliable sources when you weed through the nonsense. Eg. Doug Weller  talk 14:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Doug for that link. I also came upon that source which seems like a reliable source to me. It was already added to the article. However, you may want to check my analysis of the non-SPLC sources cited in the article back in 2018 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_supremacy/Archive_6#Original_Research,_factual_accuracy,_synth_and_one_main_source._Also,_is_this_article_a_list? in this archived discussion] as well as the sources provided in this later AFD. You can also examine the non-SPLC sources cited yourself and you will find that they are not discussing the topic in great detail/ are merely passing mentions; not discussing the topic at all; or are talking about Black separatism which is a different topic altogether from "Black supremacy". Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Like most users commenting, I don't really see the problem given that we do have sources. It's not hard to find concepts that rely much heavier on one single source. I'm also somewhat concerned how the goalposts keep changing. It seems the user who placed the tag just changes the subject when one issue is answered. It's gone from being about just one source, to not being notable, to being too soon, etc. The users seems more interesting in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS than actually finding more sources. The user has already tried to get rid of this article in multiple ways and failed. I try to asdhere to WP:AGF but I find it a bit hard here. I suggest the tags be removed, as the article does not rely on just one source. Jeppiz (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nop! My position remains the same. Read from the top! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I edited the article a while back when it was in this state. The concurrent AfD closed as no consensus: Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (I'd voted to delete). IIRC, there was a dearth of sources, SPLC being the one that used the name consistently. All in all, I'm not convinced of notability and would support perhaps a merge/redirect to Black separatism as a short section, primarily discussing the term rather than an ideology, which is not well defined. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support that. I think it is interesting you also noticed the OR and SYNTH based on your commentary on that AFD. 2 years later, I also noticed the same. See here and here. I support your proposal. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you like to propose a para or section that may go into the target article? It would be easier to discuss a merge that way. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the following, but please feel free to add, edit or remove:


 * Southern Poverty Law Center's neologism of Black supremecy
 * The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has advanced the neologism—"Black supremecy".[NB: Cite SPLC here] The existence of "Black supremacy" has been debunked and rejected by many credible scholars including Professor George M. Fredrickson, Michael C. Dawson and Angela Davis.  The SPLC defines "Black supremacy" as [Insert SPLC'S definition here, because I still can't find their definition of the term reading this article]. The SPLC describes the following African-American organizations as holding Black supremacist views [NB: As per sources only. We should not list organizations not considered holding "Black supremecist" view according to the SPLC]:
 * The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ (ICGJC)
 * The Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge (ISUPK)
 * The Nation of Yahweh
 * The United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors


 * According to Angela Davis, the notion of "Black supremacy" over White people was one of the many fabrications used by the dominant White American society as justification for terrorizing and lynching of Black people. She writes: "During the period following 1872, the years of the rise of such vigilante groups as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia, a new pretext was concocted. Lynchings were represented as a necessary measure to prevent Black supremacy over white people—in other words, to reafirm white supremacy. [NB: I am only using this source because it was one of the sources cited by one of the keep !votes in the last AFD despite not realising that they took the quote of Ms. Davis out of context.]


 * Other scholars such as Professor George M. Fredrickson and Michael C. Dawson also debunked the notion of "Black supremacy". Fredrickson regard the term as an over reaction by the "the architects of segregation and apartheid", and an unjustified fear that Black people will do on to Whites as Whites have done onto Black people. Professor Fredrickson refute that notion, and moreso in the USA, as African Americans do not hold power and in his view, no credible and intellectual African American or South African resistant leader for that matter has ever advocated for their own system of an "upside–down version of apartheid."


 * Michael C. Dawson in his paper Black Power in 1996 and the Demonization of African Americans refutes the notion of "Black supremacy", and regard the term as White Americans' fear that White supremacy will be replaced with "Black supremacy" if Black Americans are ever treated fairly or if there is Black unity. He writes: "Blacks and whites understood black power to represent very different concepts. Where blacks understood the concept to mean either fairness or black unity, whites saw the slogan as representing blacks' demand that white supremacy be replaced with black supremacy."


 * Notice that I have used quotation marks in "Black supremacy"as I believe it should be in quotation marks for the fringe it is. Feel free to modify as you see fit. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of content for potential merging
As a follow-up to Senegambianamestudy's content above, here's my suggested revision. I'm using "Black supremacy" in quotes in the section title, to indicate that a term being discussed, rather than the concept (which the sources indicate do not exist). I tentatively removed the contents potentially cited to SPLC as it seemed out of place. They use the term, but do not define it. So I wonder if this can be omitted altogether, but I don't feel strongly on this point. I just had difficulty properly integrating it.

The existence of "Black supremacy" has been debunked and rejected by many credible scholars including Professor George M. Fredrickson, Michael C. Dawson and Angela Davis. According to Angela Davis, the notion of "Black supremacy" over white people was one of the many fabrications used by the dominant white American society as justification for terrorizing and lynching of black people. She writes: "During the period following 1872, the years of the rise of such vigilante groups as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia, a new pretext was concocted. Lynchings were represented as a necessary measure to prevent Black supremacy over white people—in other words, to reaffirm white supremacy.
 * "Black supremacy"

George M. Fredrickson regards the term as an overreaction by the "the architects of segregation and apartheid", and an unjustified fear that black people will do on to whites as Whites have done onto Black people. More so, in the USA, African Americans do not hold power and in his view, no credible and intellectual African American or South African resistant leader for that matter has ever advocated for their own system of an "upside-down version of apartheid."

Political scientist Michael C. Dawson in his paper Black Power in 1996 and the Demonization of African Americans refutes the notion of "Black supremacy", and regards it as white Americans' fear that white supremacy will be replaced with "black supremacy" if black Americans are ever treated fairly or if there is Black unity. He writes: "Blacks and whites understood black power to represent very different concepts. Where blacks understood the concept to mean either fairness or black unity, whites saw the slogan as representing blacks' demand that white supremacy be replaced with black supremacy."

-- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Pinging since you participated in the earlier discussion, I wonder what your thoughts may be. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Briefly I think both suggestions above are truly TERRIBLE. B Sup isn't a neologism and nobody says it is, A Davis using the term in the 1980s and the fact that B Sup isn't much studied does not mean it is a neologism. SPLC don't 'advance' the term. simply using it is not advancing it and adding a different adjective to an established term does not require extensive definition, if I use the term Nordic supremacism, my meaning is self-explanatory, Nordic supremacism might not meaningfully exist of course, but suggesting that it needs extensive definition if only used 'in passing', is plain silly. A Davis doesn't say what either edit suggestion claims, she certainly says that historically (she is talking post civil war), the fear was exploited by white sups, well the fear of communist agents was exploited and exaggerated in the 1950s by HUAC etc, that does not mean that there were not US communists, including some who were active agents. No one would think of suggesting that US communism did not even exist simply because some people exaggerated its threat. Two people, (almost certainly rightly) claiming that fears have been exploited and exaggerated can never be bent to mean that those people are saying it does not exist, nor that they are talking about the term, not the phenomenon. They aren't even talking about Bl Sup, simply using the term as part of other narratives. I think they, and most of us here, agree that if Bl Sup exists at all, it is very fringe and largely rhetorical, certainly in predominantly white societies. The Fredrickson and Dawson texts might be usable in some form, but even there, the Dawson treats black power and black sup as synonyms - which is a fairly iffy and the subject being discussed is not Bl sup, but white fear of same. Would we write an article about US communism that said almost nothing except that mainstream America was frightened of it? Fundamentally, the problem is that the term BlSup is much used 'in passing', but the subject barely exists and is hardly studied at all. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your re-write looks pretty good to me. You have just demonstrated the lack of notability of this article and many of the arguments I've stated above and in the discussions and Afd I participatd in. Can you please suggest a re-write since you do not like the ones K.e.coffman and I have provided above? We need a re-write that everyone can agree on. So please provide yours so that we can evaluate it (and as per sources and due weight). Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I voted to delete several years ago and have consistently said that there is insufficient written about the subject to write very much at all. That isn't a good reason to write a bad article though, which, much of the time isn't even about the ostensible subject. In the case of the A Davis text, it says SYNTH's things which she simply doesn't say. I'm sure if we asked Ms Davis, she would think that Bl Sup either doesn't exist, or is so marginal/fringe-y that it may as well not exist. I agree with her, but, even so she simply doesn't say it in the sources provided. She says FEAR of BlSup was historically exploited to justify ACTUAL white supremacist actions such as lynching and her main subject is inter-racial rape. There might perhaps be an article about the term, but neither suggestion is actually doing that. Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I already stated above that I'm only using Davis as it was used by one of the keep !votes and misrepresented in the last AFD I participated in. Could you please provide a re-write so we can evaluate it? What we need here is to make sure eveyone is happy with the text. As you are not happy with the ones K and I had provided, perhaps you could write your own version so that we can take a look at it. Once everyone is happy with the wording, we can move on. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My version does not discuss the term being a neologism nor refers to SPLC. Were you perhaps referring to the earlier version (immediately above mine)? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You can't make a silk purse of a sow's ear! - (in fact you can't make anything out of a sow's ear), you can't make onion soup without onions and you can't write text about black supremacy, without sources which actually have something to say about black supremacy.


 * The main problem with this article when it was nominated for deletion about two years ago, was that it tried to make an article out of passing mentions of the term. What you are suggesting doing is again making an article out of passing mentions, but these happen to be a bit closer to our PoV - which is that BlSup does not exist. I say only a bit closer because none of them actually says it. Davis talks about white fear of BlSup post US civil war in a single 'passing' comment. Talking about someone else's fears of X, is at best an incidental detail about X, it tells one nothing about X itself. It's like writing an article on spiders that forgets to tell you anything about them except that some people are afraid of spiders - sometimes. I happen to also think that BlSup hardly exists - certainly not as a significant force or ideology - but I'm not going to WP:SYNTH conclusions solely because they accord with my view.


 * Fredrikson talks about white S. African fear of BlSup during apartheid times, again it is a single 'passing' comment, plus a comment that no evidence exists that "black resistors ever proposed there own upside-down version of apartheid" - which does not come within light years of 'debunking' the existence of BlSup and indeed says almost nothing about it at all except strongly implying it wasn't a major factor among "black resistors" in SA.


 * The Dawson similarly makes a single passing comment about white mis/conception of the phrase 'black power'.


 * I'm no great fan of the SPLC material, but it at least reliably identifies a number of fringe religious orgs that have BlSup rhetoric or 'wings' and it implicitly describes what it means iro these orgs within the sources.


 * KE Coffman, I was replying to both suggestions above. I think both are substantially WP:OR, I'm afraid and we 'open the door' to less sympathetic 'passing comments' by adding ones that happen to be nearer to our own PoV - which I strongly suspect is that Bl Sup is very marginal politically (at most) in the West. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Then what is this article doing here? Pincrete, with the utmost respect and frankness, I am confused about where exactly you stand in regards to this article. I understand that you voted delete in the first AFD. In the previous AFD and discussions (including this page and the archived tread I've linked above) you seemed to be arguing that we retain the article as you and others have done some work on it. Although I note that you merely commented on the second AFD. In your argument above, you seem to be questioning the notability of this article. Is that correct? If yes, then why are we going round in circles? I personally think that this article is not notable hence why I took it to AFD two years ago. You are just stating what I have stated here and in the archived links 2 years ago. As some editors wanted it kept, KE Coffman and I are merely trying to work towards a solution for a merge with the litte sources we have - most of it passing comments or not actually discussing the subject as I have demonstrated in the last AFD when a keep editor cited them. I've already stated this above. From my understanding of your comment, you seem to be saying there is nothing in this article that is salvageable for merging purposes. Is that correct? If yes, then perhaps this article deserve a re-visit to AFD. Other than the 3 of us, I do not see any of the keep !votes in the last AFD participating in these discussions or trying to work on this article as per our guidelines. It was quite evident that the closing admin in the last AFD was merely going by hand count rather than argument based on policy. We need to decide whether there is anything here worth salvaging for merger purposes. If nothing here is worth salvaging at all, then that provides another argument about the this article's lack of notability, and needs to be taken to AFD. If will save us all a lot of time going back and forth if we all know where everyone stand. As for me, this article should be deleted, but I'm willing to work with editors to see if there is anything worth salvaging for merger purposes. That's where I stand with this article. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * . I see you have not responded. What's the issue? Are you lost? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to respond to! I have never made any secret of my opinion that the topic barely exists except as a rhetorical term and in very fringe orgs, again mainly rhetorically. However the article survived several AfD's and I accept, even if I don't greatly respect, that decision. I have better things to do than worry about this ONE article which is wafer-thin, but not actually harmful. I keep the article on my watchlist mainly to exclude 'passing mentions' and WP:OR - for consistency I exclude OR and mentions that happen to be closer to my own PoV, as well as ones that are the opposite of that PoV. I'm here to make neutral info available to others, not to "put the world to rights". Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has been notminated for deletion: . Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC) - Pinging since you participated in the earlier discussion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that you cannot fix a ping, and pings do not go out unless they are added in the same edit as a signature ( ~ ). Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Lol at the thought that only white people can be racist or that white supremacy is the only type of supremacism. Smh live in reality folks and stop listening to the fake news msm and indoctrination by your college professors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power

However, the movement was criticized for alienating itself from the mainstream civil rights movement, for its apparent support of racial segregation, and for constituting black superiority over other races.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin_theory

Melanin theory is a claim in Afrocentrism that a higher level of melanin, the primary determinant of skin color in humans, is the cause of an intellectual and physical superiority of dark-skinned people and provides them with superior abilities or even mystical/supernatural ones. It is a racist, pseudoscientific theory.

Black Racism

Political Correctness & Cultural Marxism

Footballfan90 (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That is the second time you have posted links to extremist fringe websites. Wikipedia isn't going to include any of this, so this is becoming disruptive. "Cultural Marxism" is a nonsense term coined by literal Nazis, and "political correctness" is something people complain about on Facebook and talk radio because they don't like that they have to be civil to people who are different from themselves. We're not interested in this crap, we are interested in reliable sources. If you are not interested in neutrally summarizing reliable sources, please find some other website to occupy your time. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my links? Afraid people will use their own minds instead of blindly following the liberal narrative eh? People look up discover the networks website by David Horowitz, a God fearing good man. Cultural Marxism is real and anyone can see that when they look at the Marxist takeover of the liberal university system. Read up on it folks and decide for yourselves. I'll add a couple different links though since you insist on deleting the others...

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/new-black-panther-party Black racist supremacists

https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism Cultural Marxism Political Correctness Footballfan90 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
Black Lives Matter (BLM) founded July 13 2013 was originally created to prevent systematic racism against black people. However some members of the group hold extremist anti-white far-left agendas as seen in some protests. 138.130.197.189 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 05:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:White supremacy which could affect this article
Please add your comments at Talk:White supremacy/Archives/ 1. — GamerKiller2347 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:White supremacy which could affect this article
Please add your comments at Talk:White supremacy/Archives/ 1. — GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Examples of Black Supremacy.
This page should include examples of Black Supremacy as there are thousands that would be relevant sources to improve this page.

Example:

White people - are genetic defects and are an inferior race.

https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects/wcm/2748a714-f567-4344-8c08-decfe73d1e52

Please feel free to add more examples that should be equally added to improve this Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:ACF6:3536:47FE:99B4 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be used on Yusra Khogali's article (If she has any)? This racism seems too miscellaneous to be included in the Black supremacy article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge this page into Black separatism or merge Black separatism into this page. There is an overlap between the two and they are both rather small articles that could benefit being put together. The article on White supremacy is already merged with the article on White separatism. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why, since they are distinct topics? The comparison with White supremacy/separatism is not very helpful or valid. Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
include blqck lives matters as a supremacy group based upon the fact they do not support all lives matters(ps this is a hawaiin) 71.94.226.135 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 07:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

change "Groups associated with black supremacist views" to also include "Black Lives Matter", as one of the slogans they use in protests is "all lives don't matter until black lives matter" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.163.181 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Supremist - religious group - Nation of Islam (should be included).
The Nation of Islam is an African-American political and new religious movement.

The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks the Nation of Islam as a hate group which, it claims, teaches a "theology of innate black superiority over whites. Publicly promoting racial separatism, black nationalism, and of having promoted black supremacist beliefs in the past with evidence being public.

NOI also linked to antisemitism and homophobia previously blaming white-western values for homosexuality. 82.71.230.181 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Cdm


 * We go on what the balance of WP:RS say, not what you or I think, SPLC says they "promoted black supremacist beliefs in the past", so we record this. What on earth however does a fairly bonkers view of the origins of homosexuality have to do with whether they are black supremacist? Pincrete (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021
Black Lives Matter, the national black caucus and certain members of the democrat party are also known black supremist groups you left out, see BLMs own page,  John Lewis and Elijah Cummings, two openly racist black politicians that just passed away. Listen to any of their past comments on race and if you dont see open racism you just aren’t looking or support the same destructive ideology. 100.37.31.230 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't think reliable sources describe Black Lives Matter or the National Black Caucus of State Legislators as black supremacists. Volteer1 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021
The article has to be reviewed because in the “historical usage” section it says that the SPLC still uses the term, but they don’t since October, 2020. I can do it, or someone else can. Vvvieira (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Vvvieira, do you have a source that makes explicit that they have done so - and why, which would be preferasble to simply removing the text IMO.Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Agree with Pin; having a comment as to why the term is not used anymore would be better and more encyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi everybody. The October 2020 SPLC statement about removing the category "black supremacy" and moving groups to other classifications is here: Vvvieira (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like that source talks of Black Separatist groups rather than Black Supremacy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Black Supremacy" in the early history of Rastafarianism

 * regarding your doubt about whether Fitz Balintine Pettersburg's work is "off-topic" or not: "Black Supremacy" is definitely a concept discussed in the scholarship of early Rastafarian history. See this cite I added: Now, you can ask the question of whether "Blake Supremacy" in the context of Rastafarian scholarship means the same thing (or not) as "Black Supremacy" as the term has been popularised by the SPLC. I think the answer is, the two terms maybe don't have the exact same meaning (I think scholarship of Rastafarianism views "Black Supremacy" much more positively than the SPLC did when it used to promote this term), but they are not completely disconnected in meaning either. It would be great if we could find some reliable source which discussed the relationship between the two, but unfortunately I am not aware of one. Mr248 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asking a question rather than voicing a formed opinion. My question was whether we were beginning to discuss the history of Rastafarianism rather of Bl-Sup. From the little I was able to read, it seems that these figures - although using the term - may have had a slightly different concept of what Bl-Sup was from the modern idea. I'm not challenging the present text though and would welcome a good source delineating the difference, as you mention above. Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is "Blake supremacy" a typo or it's really the spelling used instead "Black supremacy"? Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021
The primary, and only at the time of writing, article in the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) section appears to discuss Black Separatism, not Black Supremacy.

The article in question: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/10/08/equity-through-accuracy-changes-our-hate-map

I tried contacting the SPLC with a general inquiry to see if it was still valid to interpret it as including Black Supremacy, and I have so far received no response from them.

I was wondering if someone could inquire if Black Supremacy was a valid interpretation of the article since the SPLC doesn't appear to use the term themselves as of writing this or if this was a misreading and this section should instead be placed under the Black Separatism page, which currently makes no mention of this important information, and removed from here.

Let me know as soon as you can. Thanks! 2600:6C40:100:59D1:55D2:8638:F51C:B23D (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, ScottishFinnishRadish! Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
 * I was recommending that someone change the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) section by relocating it from it's current page to the Black Separatism page as the article for the section, which is listed above (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/10/08/equity-through-accuracy-changes-our-hate-map), refers to Black Separatism, not Black Supremacy.
 * It seems as though the SPLC does not use the term Black Supremacy anymore, but the article above makes no mention of Black Supremacy. I recommend that someone change the SPLC section to the Black Separatism page and either delete the section here or provide a reliable source for it here.
 * This assumes I am reading the article mentioned correctly. Please inform me if I am not reading the article correctly or if someone has contacted the SPLC for clarification on this issue. Thanks again! ::2600:6C40:100:59D1:55D2:8638:F51C:B23D (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above argument is not clear, but what I see clearly is that the SPLC section contains a single reference at the end and this reference never mentions "black supremacy". It only refers to "black separatism". The word "supremacy" is only used in "white supremacy".  Therefore, the content of this section is not verified in the only source provided. I should add to this that any suggested connection made between "black separatism" and "black supremacy" violates neutrality. As it is now, this section is not sourced, controversial and should perhaps be deleted. Moreover, looking at this talk page, I see that I am not the only one that have noticed that. Why nothing has been done?  Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done You both bring up valid points. I checked the web archives to confirm that the source wasn't changed after it was originally published. It appears that the article has not been altered, certainly not to remove the term "black supremacy". With this in mind, I reviewed the section again and must agree that the section was intentionally misleading. I am planning to move the content to black separatism page shortly. Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you all! It appears as though the section was added to the Black Separatism page and left in the Black Supremacy page with the same source. Perhaps further action is still necessary or underway?
 * Regardless, thank you all for taking the time to review and address this! Accuracy regarding information on controversial subjects, particularly race, is crucial, and I wanted to take a minute to thank all of you for taking the time and effort to keep this page free of vandalism and full of accurate, valid, and reliable information. Thank you!
 * 2600:6C40:100:59D1:55D2:8638:F51C:B23D (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:100:59D1:CC35:A21E:82A0:2B64 (talk)
 * We all appreciate your kind words. In response to your question, it looks like has since added most of the text back into this article. I'm curious about the reasoning behind this action as well, since I didn't find any mention of black supremacy in the quoted source, even dating back to the oldest archive that I could find. TimSmit (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I re-instated about half of the prev text. SPLC used to monitor/categorise/describe some groups, notably certain religious groups as "Black supremacist" - or in some instances spoke of "Black supremacist rhetoric" being an aspect of the group's beliefs. Recently they abandoned that practice, and indeed stopped monitoring all black seperatist groups, unless they were also antisemetic, misogynistic or displayed some other "phobia". Their statement announcing this change hardly mentions "Black supremacism" - as has been pointed out - largely focusing on "Black seperatism". BUT, the fact that they previously monitored supremacist groups, stopped doing so and the reasons for them dropping the practice (false equivalence) are all pertinent IMO. Certainly the text and refs could be improved, but I believe the SPLC monitoring to be part of the history of the term - in a subject which is barely written about at all, the use and dropping of the use were both significant. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation and reasoning. I agree that your logic makes sense in the context of notability and the reasoning of SPLC changing their practices. My only issue at the moment is that I am struggling to find any instance where the SPLC has mentioned the terms "black supremacy", "black supremacist", or "black supremacist rhetoric". However, I did find mentions of white supremacy and male supremacy. I am not closely involved with the subject and can't easily search their past archives, previously removed content, etc. so if you could point me in the right direction (even just a page on web.archive.org or archive.is) of an example that you mentioned, that would be great. In this case I would probably be able to add the archive as its own citation to supplement the existing text. Otherwise the topic may still be up for debate per the reasoning provided by Dominic. Thank you! TimSmit (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you appear to be wholly correct. SPLC hasn't 'outlawed' the term and still uses it within its articles but not its categories - the text I 'saved' is probably not worth the effort, so dependent is it on extrapolation. I don't object to its removal. Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC) If you look at the individual churches on this article - the term remains 'live' within SPLC articles, but not categories. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just trying to get us on the same page. I appreciate that you've gone ahead and removed that section for now, and I am not opposed to mentioning the SPLC in some fashion, just wouldn't want to put words in their mouth I suppose. Seeing as they still use the term to describe individual churches and such, we could still have a sentence or two with regards to the SPLC, perhaps near where the Associated Press is mentioned. And of course, the previously existing content is present on the black separatism page where it may be a better fit. Anyway, I will defer to you and other editors regarding further changes. Cheers! TimSmit (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is still text within entries for individual churches - only the "change of heart" general statement text has been removed, so I don't think that anything else is needed. Pincrete (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Why the hell is this entry so short?
Black supremacy has had a large impact on the world. Yet this measly entry is a few paragraphs in length?

Is this a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:13f0:8110:e990:15e2:12ab:8766 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia editors are volunteers, you're welcome to suggest more material to add to the article or make an account and write it yourself. Vague complaining helps nobody. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You'd be surprised by how much they cover up and keep hidden away from the public. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
7 out 18 sources is from the Southern Poverty Law Center that has its own scandal of fudging their "Hate Watch" list. This needs additional sources. This Articles WP:NPOV is in question because of the majority single sourcing.Robjwev (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's heavy on one source, but it's a source that tracks this stuff. The SPLC has its issues, but is anything here in dispute? Also, 7/18 is not exactly a majority. How about we work together to make the page better? Maybe add some more sources? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, did I blunder into the middle of a controversy or something? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No you didn't...It's not about rather the information is correct because the page remains unchanged. The banner is there to alert other editors in an attempt to resolve the issue and should stay in place until resolved.Robjwev (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are not SPLC, but like it or not they are an authority on the topic. Is it a reliability issue or do you want more sources that parrot what they say? PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * SPLC is a single source, additional references should be used regardless of rather you see them as an authority on the issue. Robjwev (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not I that sees them as an authority on the issue but broad community consensus. There is a summary of this at WP:SPLC. PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the notes that came with this? WP: SPLC I place a banner on it and removed nothing.Robjwev (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup saw them, so why question the source or imply that is just my view rather than a broad consensus of the community? Regardless, if that is your only issue the tag should be removed at this point as baseless. 01:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Never questioned the source only thing I questioned is the lack of additional sources instead of relying too much on a single source. Robjwev (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reliance was a consequence of a lack of sources. Frankly, little is written about the subject and when cleaned-up a few years ago this is what was left.Pincrete (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Libel (published statements damaging to one's reputation)
You've written things on here claiming that specific groups have said something without any identification of whether they actually said anything. You'll claim that "SPLC claimed" something without proof. The approach is either propaganda or a lie, and both aren't good. Eventually, these groups will come after Wikipedia, and Wikipedia will claim that they aren't the editors, and guess who be next in line to answer questions?

My suggestion is that you cite the specific SPLC sources or remove the allegations. Othelllo (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which claims are not already cited? Introductions are exempt from citing, as the claims are cited in the body of the article. Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022
There are alot of other groups like blm that NEED added. 173.80.93.229 (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also need reliable sources that describe said groups as supporting/believing in black supremacy. Cannolis (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That I ask this user to prove, I ask anyone to prove that with but a single, reliable, credible citation, I must note that bias and opinion do not belong on Wikipedia. Markovich Rashkolnikov (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is bad
racist and misleading. 2601:601:51D:411C:546F:FAA1:6A9D:E529 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Specifically? Pincrete (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

SPLC
The decision by SPLC to stop tracking Black supremacy, and to instead classify it as "Black activism" against White supremacy should either be removed as irrelevant, or reworded so its not presented as a neutral stance. Using them as a source in the rest of the article conflicts directly with this paragraph. Also there's this line " A source described by historian David Mark Chalmers as being "the most extensive source on right-wing extremism" is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), " Why does the SPLC's bone fides need this? It ignores that black supremacy crosses right/left lines for one thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SPLC announced they they no longer use the category of "Black separatism", not tat they would no longer use the category of "Black supremacy". I removed the paragrah.--Pa2chant.bis (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pa2chant.bis, you are factually correct, however the later text is heavily dependent on SPLC descriptions of fringe religiousc groups, so I've partially restored a corrected text to put the descriptions in context. Pincrete (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand the idea : they stopped to use the catégory separatist group in which some supremacists were included, but never said the word descripted supremacist groups, as now stated in the page. I added a "citation needed". They still denonciate those supremacist groups in others categories, there is no reason that the text be dependant of their categories. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pa2chant.bis, look immediately below that section - the fringe churches - within the descriptions they characterise several groups as, to a greater or lesser extent 'supremacist'. They DON'T, categorise supremacist groups as such and I think never have.


 * Without the context of SPLC ceasing to categorise black groups as such, the later descriptions would appear to still be current SPLC designations. AFAIK, they have only historically denounced those supremacist groups for their 'supremacist' views. They now only categorise them/ denounce them if they are, for example anti-semetic, anti LGB, etc.Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Partially agree with you for the distinction between description and categorization. So the text should be corrected. They reject the use of the categarisation separatist, not sure they do the same with the description of suprematists. Because they have made a strong différence between separatism and supremacism : It’s critically important to distinguish those groups that espouse Black supremacy or advocate for nationalism based on race – we could call that Black Racial Nationalism – from Black separatism .So the use of categories is not linked with the use of the term.--Pa2chant.bis (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite often the SPLC simply say things like "supremacist wing", "has used supremacist rhetoric" etc. There's a long history of this article documented in the archives, but basically hardly anything has been written about 'Black supremacy', but WP insists on keeping it! Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we have the same kind of discussion on the french page. I will get back to you if we ave a brillant idea, but the current state is not satisfactory. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)--Pa2chant.bis (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of a thesis for off-topic content in SPLC section
User:Vache-crapaud, firstly you should read WP:BRD, and WP:RS - the onus is on you to persuade others that the material you wish to insert is relevant, reliably sourced and useful info. The onus is not on me or others to prove it is not.

AFAI can see this addition isn't about the article subject (Black supremacy), rather it is some vague criticism of SPLC. It isn't reliably sourced (an unpublished graduate thesis is neither a reliable source, not is it verifiable).

I'm going to o revert to the stable version of the article and invite you to make your case here if you want this material included. Please don't WP:EDITWAR further.Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Pincrete Thank you for pointing me to the BRD page, which is an interesting debate strategy, though as it states, it is entirely optional. IMHO, the source I have drawn on is more reliable, because it is secondary and specifically focused on the SPLC's Hate Map's problems of categorisation, than using the SPLC itself as a source. As for the relevance of drawing on that source in that section : the SPLC's 2020 decision to stop surveiling Black separatist groups which they used to qualify as Black supremacists is due, as they themselves state, to the confusion they have fostered around the equivalence of Black separatism and white supremacy. My addition's interest is to ground into secondary sources this role they have played. Indeed, I cannot prove that this master's thesis has had scholarly influence (as per the criteria of the WP page on masters thesis as reliable sources). But I believe that if you deem the article better off without it, you ought to also take out all the direct references to SPLC documents. What do you think ? Vache-crapaud (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Vache-crapaud, SPLC's 2020 decision to stop surveiling Black separatist groups which they used to qualify as Black supremacists. They didn't EVER categorise groups as 'Black supremacist' - they occasionally described some separatist groups as being Black supremacist - within their text, see the religious groups below the SPLC section.


 * The text you added doesn't mention 'Black supremacy' AT ALL, so how can it be about that subject.


 * Comparing an unprinted - and unverifiable student thesis - to an established and widely respected institution (SPLC) is way outside WP policy and practice. Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the 2020 declaration was a recognition of the previous conflation between suprematism and separatism the SPLC had been involved in. This is supported, I believe, by this editor's note on a 2008 article at https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2008/racist-black-hebrew-israelites-becoming-more-militant : "The SPLC no longer supports the framing of Black-led antisemitic hate groups as “supremacist,” because such characterizations perpetuate a false equivalency between what these groups represent and white supremacy. Any mention of racism in the context of the Black-led hate ideology described in this article does not appropriately reckon with the systemic force that is structural racism."


 * Additionnally, no matter how respectable or well-established a source is, an institution is imho never a reliable source when the subject matter is its own controversial positions.
 * Thoughts ? Vache-crapaud (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)