Talk:Black nationalism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Species" reference

I removed the reference to "species" in the phrase, "The term 'race', though held by many geneticists to be of little scientific value (the proper term in such a context being species). . ." because I don't think it's an accurate in this context. Species is not the proper term used in place of race, because in this context, race is used to refer to a subgroup within a species rather than a synonym for species. Thus, the term "race" is criticized because it is a psuedo-scientific conception. Species isn't a proper alternative for race in that context, because the problem is the idea, not the terminology. --JamesAM 18:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

what does it mean to be black

I think this article is well written there is so much more that can be link to it to represent black popular culture and their history Yivi29 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)yivi29

Scope

This article is outside my scope of expertise, but it seems to me that it is in strong need of re-focusing - as well as re-structuring. The article seems to include all sorts of people whose claim to be "black nationalists" is pretty tenuous - the sections on Prince Hall, the Free African Society and African Episcopal Church are all interesting in their own right, but have no WP:RS to support their link to "black nationalism" as an ideology. On the other hand, there are some important gaps - Garvey clearly needs more space, as does the Back-to-Africa movement which has clear ideological links.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I second the previous comment. It is confusing that 20th century organizations like the Nation of Islam and the NAACP come before the 20th century heading. It is unclear why Elijah Muhammad needs his own section, since he is already mentioned in the Nation of Islam section. And if we're going to keep the NAACP in this article, that section should at least make some mention of Black Nationalism and how it has influenced the organization. Womanbyday (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Nationalism vs Black Supremacy

May it be a good idea to say in the wikiarticle which is the difference. Sirslayercort (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a statement without any justification. I have added a citation needed for this. I also think for the article to be legitimate, they must be a comparison between white nationalism and black nationalism as similar arguments are made by white nationalists. The article overall seems to just implicitly accept black nationalism as valid in the first paragraph and beyond the typical "critics" section, there is no real justification of this point beyond a Britannica article (ironic) which is an editor statement with no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.33.73 (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Needed inclusion

There is nothing on Liberia and very little about from the 1800s until the Nation of Islam. It seems there are some large sections missing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

NAACP?

I fail to see how the NAACP is relevant to this article at all. The organisation doesn't promote black nationalism, and in fact supports the integration black nationalism is stated to oppose in the article's lead. The information in the section is accurate, but isn't really relevant to the article's subject in any way. I'm going to remove it for now, but if someone can come up with a source that actually states how the NAACP is a proponent of or influential to black nationalism, they can feel free to rewrite it. (I wouldn't recommend a revert, as the text probably wouldn't pass a plagiarism test when compared to its rather low-quality source.) 73.65.146.100 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. This was added May 2017, likely as part of a student editing assignment. The attached source says nothing about nationalism. Even if it did, Chegg doesn't appear to be a reliable source. That editor made several large additions at that time, and the WP:COPYVIO problems suggest that these will all need to be carefully checked, unfortunately. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Close parphrase

Per above, much of the content added last year seems to have been only minimally rephrased from the sources, some of which were not even reliable. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I do not have the time to fix this now, but if anybody else wants to tackle this before I get a chance, go for it! Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Black nationalism and SPLC source

73.71.251.64 keeps trying to remove from the Nation of Islam section parts of the current quote from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/nation-islam on the basis of https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/10/08/equity-through-accuracy-changes-our-hate-map from 8 October, and calling warnings "threats", "lame", and harrassment". I and Serols think this is wrong. Background is at User talk:Jeff G.#Black nationalism and SPLC source, User talk:73.71.251.64, and User talk:Serols/Archive 18#Black nationalism. — Jeff G. ツ 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:RS AGE: "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." The SPLC is distancing itself from the way that it has described black nationalism in the past. It is under no obligation to memory-hole the old sources before its new position is reflected here. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Related topics