Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racist music

Racist music

Racist music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article concentrates on recent musical trends in the US, is NPOV and seems to attack popular music, and trends off topic in numerous areas. It has few major contributors, many of whom were trying to fix the article. It contains quite a bit of original research, as well as cites that either seem NPOV, or may not directly relate to the text. Since this article is largely NPOV, is likely to disseminate information, and tends to enter other topics, it should be deleted and replaced with a new article on the subject of racism in music. Skrelk (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: So far, you've propounded no valid grounds for deletion. Cites that don't support the statements asserted? Remove them. I agree the main writer strays offtopic a good bit (and have said so on the talk page), but that's another content dispute. In any event, there is nothing in deletion policy which establishes a minimum threshold for number of contributors or that requires that works cited themselves be written in a neutral voice. "Seems" to attack popular music? That's your opinion, but I don't see it. Contains "quite a bit" of original research? Err ... just about every sentence in the article has an inline citation; what facts are you alleging the creator came up with on his own? What you're describing are content disputes, and content disputes are properly resolved on the talk page of an article, through consensus.  Ravenswing  08:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been open to the off-topic assertions and have taken in constructive criticism on how to fix that, unfortunately two editors have decided that deleting sourced content is acceptable whether on or off-topic. I believe every statement about Racist music is well-sourced. Jnast1 (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: POV and IDONTLIKEIT nomination. The article well-sourced and meets WP:N. Any NPOV dispute should be resolved by editing, AfD is the wrong venue. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Undecided. This reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Although well referenced, it seems like WP:Synthesis. Also, the article isn't about racist music in general; its specifically about White power music. Pburka (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Those are editing issues which I have been working to address, it takes a while to read through dozens of sources and accurately convey what they state. And no, this is not solely about white power music we already have a sub-standard article about that genre but it is not my intent to fix every bad article that tangentially addresses this topic. I am working to fix this one. Jnast1 (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Is it possible that white power music shouldn't redirect to Rock Against Communism, and this content should be on that page? Niluop (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Not exactly, I think. When this article, which I'm quite sure is accurately titled, is further laid out and some of the off-topic concerns better addressed I'll have a better understanding of how to integrate Rock Against Communism, as of yet the section is merely a summary of that article. I think once more work is done white power music should redirect to this article or be started as its own article if sourcing shows that not all white power music is Rock Against Communism or Racist music. It's certainly related but i need to research more to see if it is one, both or neither. Jnast1 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Rename as White power music and massively clean up. The whole basis of this article is dubious. There is no evidence that the term racist music only refers to white racist music. The reference in the lead sentence does not show any specific quote, and it doesn't even clarify which issue of Intelligence Report (there were 4 issueas in that year) it is referring to. Despite recent improvements, the article is still full of original research, POV-pushing and off-topic content. Yes, there are a lot of footnotes, but they only support individual sentences, not the overall basis of the article. Also, many of the references do not show specific quotes, so it is difficult to tell if the references actually do support the claims being made.Spylab (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Another pile of vague editing attacks is unhelpful, you pointed out the issue with the lead sentence and I'm working to find what I feel are the best sources and what they state to address that concern. This takes more time than deleting stuff I don't like. My opinion doesn't really matter, just what is reliably sourced. If you are going to challenge every sentence it seems like very little of what is written on the subject will actually get into the article. I'm trying to avoid a series of quotations but if that's what consensus calls for maybe the article should be changed to a List of quotations about Racist music. I don't think that's desirable. Jnast1 (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy keep and no to renaming without overwhelming consensus that sourcing supports a different name. I have been working to address the concerns when they are decently and politely articulated. Unfortunately two users are determined to mitigate the extent and impact of what is referred to as Racist music. It's called a number of names as the genres of this music changes over time. When it was first documented in the 1950s it wasn't called anything by the mainstream likely because it was spread in actual recordings through an underground network. Most likely the Ku Klux Klan. I think White racist music is somewhat more accurate but it is not all inclusive nor do sources regularly use that term. It's been suggested to expand this article to discuss all racism in the music industry and, just in the last few days, all racism in music. Both of those are huge subject areas and outside the limited scope of the article. Unfortunately the two editors have taken it upon themselves to rewrite what was sourced thus adding their own original research and have deleted the structure of the article. Once sections are actually worked through (which is a lot harder than deleting them) and later chapters about RaHoWa, Resistance Records and Prussian Blue are added the article looks more like the overview that Wikipedia should have. Deleting references to music genres one is passionate about for whatever reason is not the path to a well-documented article, for instance teen pop is a specific genre and has been removed. That is unacceptable. Arguably the authority on Racist music since the 1990s is the Southern Poverty Law Center, you can see some of their reports; "Intelligence Files: Racist Music", "Money, Music and the Doctor: Aided by a GOP strategist, America's leading neo-Nazi has put out nearly $250,000 to acquire the nation's powerhouse distributor of racist rock", "Essay: Racist Music", "They’re Back: Racist Music Sampler to be Distributed to Schools", "Active Racist Music Groups".
  * Other readily available sources; "Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites", "Racist Music Goes Digital", "RACIST MUSIC: (SONGS OF BIGOTRY AND RACIAL INTOLERANCE)" - BTW, this is the first source I've seen to implicitly state "Other races and nationalities beside African Americans were used in racist music including Germans, Chinese, Dutch, Native Americans, and Irish." they also list songs from 1896 to 1920s, but i have not had time to follow-up on that research so I did not add it or anything else that i could not source reliably. "Vh1 Special Goes Behind The (racist) Music" (of their "Behind the Music" series), "Brighton council calls for a ban on racist music" (this was a part of the Stop Murder Music effort), "Transcript: Internet Battle Over Racist Music Ends Tonight", "Was That Racist or Not? I Can’t Tell: The Music of Prussian Blue", "SWEDISH BIZ DECRIES RACIST MUSIC."
  * Other related issues; "Star attacks 'racist' music industry", "Panel Targets Racist Music", "Judge reserves decision over 'racist' music video", "Using African American (Negro) Spirituals in Coping with Stress by Creative African Americans Who Perform Piano and Vocal European Classical Music in a Racist Industry and Oppressed Society",
  * Some related book searches; "racist music" intitle:music, "racist music" intitle:racist, "racist music" intitle:race, "racist music" intitle:jewish, "racist music" intitle:black, "racist music" intitle:mexican, "racist music" , "racist music" intitle:nativism, ""racist music" intitle:klux" and "racist music" intitle:discrimination. I hope anyone who surveys some of the sources i have been looking through will confirm that "Racist music" is indeed the proper name for this article and that many sources exist. I also take personal offense repeatedly being accused of original research but will work with those offering constructive criticism. If some other could also keep an eye on the article I would appreciate as deleting sections under construction and discussion is hostile and unproductive, notice the note left was deleted another totally off-topic section. It had nothing at all to do with music. Included in that section was:

Songs and music were integral to the movement; they comforted marchers who were subject to violence and sometimes death, they sustained the movement through hardships and hard-won successes, and they became "a central aspect of the cultural environment" that was "the language that focused people's energy". By the 1960 Greensboro sit-ins, “freedom songs” were central to the movement. Well known performers like Dion, Peter, Paul and Mary, Curtis Mayfield and The Impressions, The Rascals, The Staple Singers, James Brown, Sly and the Family Stone, and Aretha Franklin had chart-topping “protest” or “message” songs associated with the civil rights movement. A partial list of other notable performers that also supported the movement include; Billie Holiday, Mahalia Jackson, The Freedom Singers, Fannie Lou Hamer, Bob Dylan, The CORE Freedom Singers, Bernice Johnson Reagon, Cordell Reagon, Nina Simone, Grant Green, Sam Cooke, Hank Crawford, Jimmy McGriff Singer Harry Belafonte was happy to help when asked by Martin Luther King Jr., Joan Baez donated the proceeds of many of her concerts to the civil rights movement.

The next additions to that section was to incorporate more music history tied to racial issues, like the KKK being the first major distributor of Racist music, and tying in Minstrel shows and other bits that do have a place but I haven't yet researched them all to fit them in coherently enough, notice also the dismissal of common sense to delete [1] related information that belongs in the article. I think the general point is summed up at Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Jnast1 (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jnast1, I'm offended that you appear to believe I'm supporting or mitigating racism. I'm not, I'm opposed to it as much as anyone. This article has some sensationalist issues, and while it perhaps shouldn't be deleted, it needs to be speedily altered to prevent it from giving false negative information. This article is blatantly sensationalistic and hysterical. Your making illogical correlations that are not backed by the refs. My concern with the article is that it not result in people walking away thinking 'OMG Genres X, Y and Z are RACIST. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone who isn't passionate about the subject as you. This isn't an issue of trying to moderate racism, it's an issue prevent an article from painting cultures and genres with a broad brush that paints scarlet letters. I challenge you to find something that indicates the history of racism in hardcore punk you implied earlier. I can cite numerous examples of a history anti-racism, including anarcho-punk and most political punk, as well as specific(very well known bands) such as Minor Threat, Propagandhi, the Dead Kennedys and Bad Religion. The SPLC, while a respectable organization, has an interest in portraying the existence of a racism problem-it's where they get their popularity and funding. You shouldn't rely heavily on them(an organization I more or less support) for an article on racism in music any more than you should rely on ACLU(an organization I fully support) reference for an article on Guantanamo Bay, they are POV resources. I also would question whether VH1 is a valid source for such a serious accusation as stating that music is a cause of terrorism. You have an angle here, which is that racist music is a scary thing that we need to censor and hide from. I'm sure you feel your doing the right thing, but your pushing a POV here, and your insulting innocent cultures and genres in the process. If you want to write about the dangers of racism(of which we all are, or should be aware), get a blog or a job with the SPLC or similar. Wikipedia is here to disseminate information, not to raise hysterical alarm bells.Skrelk (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Again broadly painting me as hysterical or what have you is just as offensive to me. If you feel my statements about mitigating racism were off-base I do apologize. I have nothing to do with SPLC but after looking through the sourcing available they certainly seem to be a leading if not the leading authority on the subject as of yet. Do they need to be sensationalistic or incite hysteria to fundraise? Clearly not, they have plenty of money and their award-winning work would be discredited if proven to be false or misleading. They win court cases based on their research, they are supported because of the work they do, FYI I have never donated to them, do not profit from them and i have no blog. If I did I would likely simply paste broad quotes and link to each article. That you are dubious of what the sources state is fair enough but I have little doubt in every statement about racist music made. If you dispute VH1 as a source, really?, then take it up with them or the newspaper that reported on their research. This was not some off remark of a VJ, it was an in-depth look into Racist music. In fact i should likely look into what else they have to say rather than just one newspapers review of the special report. I find the idea that any innocent cultures or genres are being insulted, again these are not my opinions and not my ideas, it's what reliable sources state, even if you are not comfortable with the sentiments. I will work to fix credible issues but it's all _____ propped up by bad sourcing is patently false and i will happily let those sources disprove you at each step of the process. Jnast1 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Most of the nom's arguments hold no water: contrary to what zie says, this is well-sourced and not an attack page on popular music, doesn't appear to be synthy, and covers the subject in a reasonably neutral fashion. Any extant issues (such as US-centrism) can be solved through cleanup, not deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It has plenty of sources. I question whether the sources are reliable, neutral, and whether they back up the points in the article. It clearly paints with an overly broad brush and has an excessively fearful tone. It either should be deleted or rewritten.Skrelk (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess nothing but excessive quotes will appease you then as you simply don't trust anything I've written? Have you even looked at the statements and sources? Jnast1 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename. This article obviously needs to be renamed. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 17:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What name is supported by reliable sources besides this one?Jnast1 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I encourage people voicing their opinions to look at a prior version that was under construction and incomplete in scope [2] before deciding their views. Two editors have taken it upon themselves to hack away and delete reliably sourced content, as well as drop tags all over the text, as well as "re-organize" text as to alter the meaning. I will be happy to work with editors who are not spreading hysterics and keen on misrepresenting sources and accusing editors of original research and false attribution. The sources are plain for anyone to see, I have nothing to prove here and no "dog in the race." Jnast1 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I also encourage people to look at the original version of the article to see the kind of serious deficiencies that are outlined above. Many of the worst problems have been remedied in subsequent edits. And again, it's not that the content is sourced; the problem that is a lot of it was wildly off-topic, or was cobbled together in order to prove a point, and that there are doubts that the sources actually say what is being claimed.Spylab (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are engaging in the very behaviors accusing me of, specifically ownership and original research. By deleting content you don't agree with and "reorganizing" content you are changing the meaning and context of statements. I didn't expect everyone to love the idea of this article but I at least hoped it could be allowed to reach a complete draft before being set upon to change the context and meaning. Jnast1 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jnast1, I'm trying to be as respectful as possible here, but to be perfectly honest, I've indicated specific problems, as has Spylab. In looking at your comments here,your responding to our concerns by accusing us of having the very problems we point out in this article. A reference is not necessarily a good or valid one, and I don't appreciate being accused of spreading hysteria when I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm not sure why I should take up my concerns about VH1 with VH1, they are what they are and this is not a respected group that researches sociology. You seem to feel you own this article(wp:ownership), and that is not the case. Two editors, neither of whom have ever encountered each other before, identified similar issues in the article. Skrelk (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing that respect you're offering so obviously. I guess it was because you are trying to delete an article less than a month after it was created and still under major construction. That's very antagonistic. Additionally it is unrealistic to expect that I will battle you and Skylab both alleging various sources are valid for their views and statements are accurate all within a day or you will delete. That seems incredibly hostile, not respectful. Other editors have been able to thoughtfully express specific issues and discuss how things could be better. no one has offered to even look at the sources instead just assume they have been misrepresented. Assuming this article is kept I will be happy to ask for support to help either or both of you stop disrupting this article's improving. Essentially I have to go back to the versions before the two of you started tag-team deletions and character attacks, and yes hysterical "concern" about the damage the article must be doing against whole music genres! Other editors have shown respect and have gotten their points across with no issues whatsoever. Did they expect me snap to and fix those issues immediately? No. They expected to be heard and understood and that has happened. It's hard for me to detect all that respect when my work is maligned publicly and disruptively. I will address the issues raised but I will do so when I don't feel attacked without all the angst. Jnast1 (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Jnast1, you are taking my and Spylab's concerns about your writing/editing and redirecting them at us. You are now threatening to block me from this article. I am not working with Spylab in any way, we simply share concerns. No tag teaming is going on, two different people feel that you are wrong. The only person making character attacks is you. I wouldn't have removed anything if it wasn't spreading dubious/misleading negative information. This article is NOT yours. When you put it on Wikipedia, you accept the possibility that perceived problems will be fixed by other editors in a way that may include deletion of certain posts. If you want to write a potentially contentious article and expect it to be left alone in a work-in-progress state, you should have done so as a draftSkrelk (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This link shows the "helpful" changes that the two of you are responsible for over the last 5 days, this is less than a month after the article was created and before it was even finished with research from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. An entire section under construction was simply deleted as were many other items that undoubtably are not only true but well-sourced. I feel attacked and see no need for it, and I won't block you even if I could, I'll ask others to see what they think should happen instead. Jnast1 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes deletion IS helpful and necessary. If you hadn't finished it, you should have kept it as a draft and finished referencing, verifing and stating the contentious/negative claims prior to putting in the wiki. This is not about you, it is about the article. I'm sure that, outside this issue, your a perfectly reasonable and pleasant person. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not attacking you, I'm removing questionable information the accuses potentially innocent groups of racism. Skrelk (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to break in here but what innocent groups were being accused of being racist?