Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

How to improve article

1. Please format the references. You can use this tool.

More coming soon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Progress? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think formatting the references is a rather low priority. The actual content of the article is quite bad--for example casually labeling rastafarianism, Marcus Garvey, and the Nation of Islam as black supremacist with no discussion of the complexity of those individuals and groups--and it would be much more important in my mind to work on the content first, though I for one have no plans to do this any time soon. If you feel the references are a priority feel free to work on them, but some of the references are pretty crappy and would be removed in the future if the article ever received a major facelift. Whether or not anyone will be inclined to work on this thing and improve it is another question--it's a fairly POV driven article as written and might be difficult to move in a more NPOV direction.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem, and I think the best solution is outright removial of them from this article. I am sure there is a much better article for the Rastafari movement to be mentioned, so I'm removing that section. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm let's look at the content removed by Yahel Guhan (emphasis added):

The Rastafari movement was originally founded on principles that included a belief in the inherent wickedness of the white race and the superiority of the black race, though these beliefs rapidly evolved into a more universalist approach which accepts converts from all ethnicities.

Calling one race "superior" is clearly supremacist.Bless sins 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to overlook this section (dispite the fact thay you quoted it): "...though these beliefs rapidly evolved into a more universalist approach which accepts converts from all ethnicities" First, notice it is an unsourced claim. Second, the text clearly states that the group changed its beliefs to become more tolerant, as stated in the part right after what you bolded. Yahel Guhan 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

first section

must specific black supremacy dont like arabs either constitutes many native north africans who are not black,because they think thay have stolen there culture so it should read black africans not all africans are black thats that and i will keep switiching it back to "state black africans"there are large native populations in north africa who are from countries in egypt ,morocco,algeria,libya,and tunisia.who come from no where else in history and theses places have always been there home.and only are called arabs because they speak arabic.--Mikmik2953 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "black" ? futurebird 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A correction. There are no non-blacks indigenous to Egypt. Arabs came to Africa from the east, conquering Egypt in 700 A.D. Get your history right. deeceevoice 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

thats your pov not fact the people in north africa now have been there since the pleistocene--Mikmik2953 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the Maghreb -- not Egypt. deeceevoice 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer my question about what you mean by "black" in this context? Who is in charge of defining who is black in the context of an article on black supremacy?futurebird 20:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

when you put african decent you are making an assupmtion that all africans are black which they are not. so unless you put black africa you are generalizeing all africans as black and anybody who as been to north africa has been there knows this i have and i know what i saw and most north africans refer to themselfs as middle eastern because if they say african decent they will be confused with the black africans because of things like the ignorance in the opening statememnt in this article and there is no purpose of this page and i suggest this page be merged with afrocentrism because that is what black supremecy falls under --Mikmik2953 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a problem with your edit, Mikmik. It makes sense to me. Your equation of black supremacy with Afrocentrism, however, is way off-base/completelyoff the wall, but that's another article, another discussion. deeceevoice 04:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

George Lincoln Rockwell photo

I've been trying to upsize it. It's weirdly undersize in relation to the other photos on the page. Besides you gotta love it. The body language says it all. ;) Anybody got a format fix? I can't get the usual codes to work. (Maybe I'm not doing them in the proper order. Dunno.) deeceevoice 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

hows it now? Yahel Guhan 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Better. For my money, I love it full size ;) -- but that's clearly too big. Besides, the reader can click it. Thanks. :D deeceevoice 06:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

NOI image

Image:Savioursday041.jpg I am not sure if the image is fair use for this article, so if it is, please add the fair use rationale. Yahel Guhan 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It says the fair use is for illustration of Nation of Islam in general or specifically Malcolm X's participation in it. That is justified with using it in this context, since the Nation of Islam well-known to be associated with black supremacy, and all we're using it for is to illustrate the Nation of Islam in the article. SenseOnes (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

Yahel- That is not a good enough reason to take something down. There is factual evidence that they preach black supremacy. Your declaration that it is not true doesn't cut it. I am not sure whether you are a Hebrew Israelite yourself (noticed the name) but partisanship shouldn't qualify over factual evidence. Raa7 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

you haven't provided a single reliable source which labels them as black supremacist. See my post below. Yahel Guhan 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely have Yahel, you erased them, and I wasn't done with the article. Your partisanship shouldn't interfere with the article. See my post below. Raa7 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The black hebrews are not black supremacists, so they do not belong in this article. Yahel Guhan 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To Yahel Guhan- I saw that you removed the Black Hebrew Israelites in the Black Supremacist Group. Although they don't label themselves Black Supremacists, they are widely recognized as this. The preaching of racial superiority by the general leaders and population allow this to qualify as true. I have sourced areas in which this shows to be true, and I will continue to. Unfortunately your removing of my information left me to redo my sources which may take time. I find it important to categorize things by fact and not opinion for the integrity of the site; I also believe the preaching of racial superiority and declarations of Jews and whites being descended from the devil only reiterates this. The fact that the nation of Yahweh derived from The Black Hebrew Israelites ideology also reiterates they both need to be here. I saw that you claimed not all Hebrew Israelite sects are like this. I don't doubt you, but until you provide legitimate sourcing that proves this and my statements otherwise do I think it is necessary or right to alter this, let alone remove the whole thing like you already have done. I would appreciate if you did not remove this information until you have found legitimate sourcing that proves otherwise. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raa7 (talk • contribs)

The group is not recognized as black supremacist. The sources you added only verify that they believe the Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi jews descended from the Khazars. Besides, they view themselves as a religion, and they are are not racists. Only one group is (Nation of Yahweh) which is an offshoot of them. Yahel Guhan 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel I had additional sources that provided evidence of mass preaching of racial superiority and you took them down. Being a religious group or not has nothing to do with one qualifying or not qualifying as a Supremacist group. If you find sources that show not all are, then it can be edited and mentioned that not all are, but it still needs to be mentioned that many are, because it's true. Raa7 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

the source you probided to label it as black supremacist was [1], which has two problems. One, it isn't a reliable source. two, the source does not in itself label the group as black supremacist. Thus it violates WP:V. Yahel Guhan 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"In many ways, Black Hebrew Israelite beliefs are a mirror image of the white supremacist Christian Identity religion, which holds that northern Europeans, not Jews, are God's true chosen people. Both see Jews as the spawn of Satan and accuse them of secretly controlling society by Machiavellian string-pulling. Tom Metzger, leader of the White Aryan Resistance, has said, "They're the black counterpart of us." -Site I sourced Maybe you should read the article more consciously. It is more reliable then many of the other sources involved in this article, maybe even more than Wikipedia itself. In research it is much more preferable to find something that ends in .org rather than .com because .org's are non-profit sites. To continue and reiterate, you cannot make an article in an hour, it takes time. In my view, you didn't remove it because of bad sourcing, you removed it because you personally oppose it, and that was your excuse. You should allow more time for an article to be developed before you just completely remove it.Raa7 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it reliable? Because you say it is? If other things are not sourced to reliable sources, they should be removed as well. Please read WP:RS, and explain to me how it is reliable? No, an article isn't created in an hour, however when you add a section to an article labeling a non-racist group as "racist" and don't provide reliable sources to make that claim, you should not expect the edit to last long on wikipedia; it will either be removed by those who hold a different POV than yours, or those who think the source is just unreliable and don't have a POV on the issue. As for your .org arguement, .org does not mean reliable, and .com does not mean unreliable. .org means it is an organization, and organizations often have a bias. (see Stormfront (website), http://www.martinlutherking.org/ for examples) I doubt you'd consider these to be relaible sources. http://www.cnn.com/ is a reliable source for news, and that is a .com website. Websites are judged based on their merit, not their address. Yahel Guhan 03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I said .org's are more desired in the subject of research because it indicates being non-profit. Most publishers and professors for non fiction books and research papers do not accept .com sources simply because there is an absolute partisanship and compromise of the site because the motivation for profit is involved. Secondly, I was preparing more sources, and you immediately erased my article. It is a racist organization at its contemporary core. There may be sects that are not, and if you source that, then it is fine. However, your hasty deleting of my article only implies partisanship to me. I will find more sources to back up this well held verity. If you are going to deny that most Black Hebrew Israelites believe that Ahskenazi, Mizrahi, and Sephardic Jews as impostors and evil, and deny that they call white people "the great deceiver" and "the devil", then prove that most don't. If you found my sources didn't hold up, you should have brought it up in the discussion page and not deleted the whole thing. I will continue to find sources to back up the idea that the majority of Black Hebrew Israelites believe these things. I also mentioned in my article to begin with that this is the general belief not the whole belief. Raa7 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

well thats the problem. You think the whole religion is racist, so you are pushing your POV. To label some organization as racist or black supremacist requires a source that is reliable that calls it racist, especially since their claim to racism is denied by the group, and lacks evidence. Wikipedia articles must present these organizations in a neutral manner. And if it is a general belief, you include the specific sects within the black hebrews that are black supremacist, and not the entire religion. Yahel Guhan 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To chime in on this, the "Black Israelites" are absolutely a "Black Supremacist" group. They claim Biblical "prophecy" predicts that one day Blacks will enslave "the white man". I don't know what the policy is on using Youtube clips, but there are a number of their Times Square "sermons", etc. that illustrate this well. There must be more literature available somewhere. What was wrong with the sources Raa7 already provided? EyePhoenix (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Supremacy in Academia

(Remove again-doesn't represent "Black supremacy" nor is it related to "US politics"--address on TALK before reevrting)

The above edit summary tells me to go here. The subject of this paragraph is a black supremacist, who calls white people 'niggers' and incidentally calls for their genocide. Why is US politics relevant? His infamous speech, and reason for his notability was due to a political speech, given in the US, on CSPAN. That's pretty much US politics. the_undertow ^talk 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote for the use of the word politics. Rbaish (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that. the_undertow ^talk 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with politics - just because something appears on CSPAN does not make it political - so no we should not use that word. And was Kambon in academia at the time of the speech? If not it makes no sense to call the section that either. Quite frankly I'm not sure this belongs in the article. Obviously Kambon is a black supremacist, but he's just one dude, not the leader of an organization or something like that. Also the Jesse Lee Peterson quote must be removed. It adds nothing to the section, and is simply a dig at civil rights leaders. I'm actually going to remove that now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the more I think about it the more I think this simply does not belong in the article at all. While I assume Kambon could be safely classified as a black supremacist, his actual statement was not really a statement for black supremacy, rather it was a call for genocide (which is far worse obviously). I'm going to remove this again (thus making me the third editor to do so) - please provide a justification for its inclusion rather than simply adding it back in.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Lack of consensus to remove. the_undertow ^talk 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That "ok" was rather cryptic - I have no idea what you mean by that. There are three editors who are arguing this should be removed, and I have provided a rationale for that. You need to provide a rationale for keeping it. I have no idea what the comment in your edit summary ("the quote states that he's representative of this behavior") means so please explain why you think this belongs in the article. Kambon is not a very prominent person, and his statement does not relate directly to black supremacy, so why would we keep it? You can't just say "no consensus to remove" - I don't think there was any consensus to add it in the first place so the fact that it was here for awhile is irrelevant.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were determining consensus right about now. Three editors arguing for removal. Where? Consensus occurs on talk pages. So far, I see you. How many different people have re-added this? You failed to mention that. So actually, I'm really quite fine with leaving this out of the article, until such consensus is in favor of its inclusion. I won't revert your edits. I don't see a consensus here either way, and it's not really vital to the article. the_undertow ^talk 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, obviously we're trying to work out a consensus right now. Boodlesthecat and Yahel Guhan both removed the section from the article (not an "argument" per say - though Boodlesthecat explained why in the edit summary - so maybe I should not have used that word) and so have I. Of course you had added it back, as has Rbaish (and a couple of anons in the same range each with one edit - but I don't put much stock in that for obvious reasons). Rbaish has been on this article for awhile and routinely avoids discussion (the above brief comment being a rare exception), preferring instead to edit war over whether the word "racism" is in the opening sentence (see the talk section above on that issue) and similar matters. To be frank I don't care all that much about that user's view given their history (though if Rbaish is willing to talk things out rather than edit warring I will listen).

I am certainly interested in hearing your view, and am still hoping you can explain why you feel the Kambon stuff should be included. If there's a way we can do it that works better than what we had then I'm open to it. But in the end as you say it's not a huge deal, particularly because this article is rather a mess to begin with.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My first gut reaction was inclusion because it looks like sourced material was being removed with no clear reason - which can be disturbing. Like you, I question motives of editors who attempt to sanitize articles. Upon thought though, singling out this individual as a representative of the whole black supremacy movement isn't really necessary. I'd rather this article focus on the ideology, and not a random player. He's a black supremacist, but his only notability is his speech, so I'd fine with leaving it be, as I reverted my own edit. the_undertow ^talk 03:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included as an example of black supremacy in Academia.Ecojosh (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that he apparently was not an academic at the time of the speech. He was speaking at a conference at a university, but the university itself decried his comments. That's part of why this is not particularly notable—Kambon is just some guy who said some horrific stuff and happened to get covered in the press.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He was an 'academic' at the time of that speech, and he also mentioned that his wife is the president of the "Black Psychologists Association". It was noted then that he was an instructor at a University (which slips my mind at the moment.) He was speaking as guest on CSPan at the time, so he was viewed by someone? as having some academic credibility. I noticed the "Academic" section doesn't exist in the article, but perhaps including it and him is appropriate in describing the scope of this phenomenon. EyePhoenix (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He was an instructor at North Carolina State until 2005 according to his article. I'm not completely sure he was gone by the time of the speech but it seems likely he was. Though the speech took place at Howard University, the event was not sponsored by the school and the school utterly repudiated his comments. His wife's affiliations are irrelevant as she did not make the statement. He is no longer an academic, and his comments didn't really cause a stir in academia, so having a "black supremacy in academia" section over this one comment makes little sense.

More important are the arguments mentioned above. He is not even talking about black supremacy per say, but rather about genocide (he is wikilinked as a see also in that article). He is also not really a notable figure, and in fact is only notable for this one comment. Basically putting this in the article amounts to "and this one guy said all white people should be killed." I don't think that really works. His comments are awful, but that doesn't mean they belong here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, and I suppose without other sources it is difficult to include. However I DO think its important. He is not just "one guy who said all white people should be killed". He was schooled by and belongs to some group or collective ideology who taught and reinforced his beliefs. And this likely exists in "Academia" somewhere. But without more sources on him and where he is coming from, I must agree. Hopefully we can find out more about who and what motivated him. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(1959) Black Supremacy Cult in the U.S. U.S. News & World Report.

that seems a little suspect for an important citation (labeling of black supremacy as racist) considering that in 1959 socially accepted views on blacks in the United States were quite different than something from the past few decades, also note that it is not available online and the title indicates that it wasn't NPOV (cult), far from a scientific study. I recommend this should be removed. Thisglad (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Melanin Theory

 Done How about placing Melanin Theory into its own article? All the racial slur, however, should stay. Jsha (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think Melanin Theory is significant enough to be split into its own article, and expanded on.Pstanton 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Pending further discussion on the matter, I've set a template for splitting at the top of that article, hopefully we'll get some more opinions, and maybe get that split accomplished.Pstanton 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm not the most skillful person on wikipedia, but seeing as there's no objections... I'll get to work on it.

When I saw the info on Melanin Theory here reprinted virtually word for word elsewhere, my first impulse was to make the MT article (once again) a redirect to "Black supremacy." And I did so. But I then noticed the discussion and decided to revert that change -- but with some changes to this article -- most notably, deleting much of the information and reinserting the lead paragraph, slightly altered. (Frankly, as the one who introduced the subject of MT to this article, I think giving it its own article is a good idea.) I wrote a new lead for the "MT" article and also moved the relevant sources from this article -- which had been omitted when the new article was created, probably due to the above contributor's (admitted) unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. deeceevoice (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we rename this page?

Just curious, the title "Black Supremacism" seems much more logical. We are talking about a philosophy, an "ism", so the name seems slightly more accurate.Pstanton 02:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Well, it really doesn't make much sense. No one says "black supremacism." It's just weird. And clumsy. (And no one says "white supremacism" either.) deeceevoice (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is..

White supremacy listed as racist, while Black supremacy not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.186.110 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. According to the rather lengthy discussion devoted to this subject a while ago, the consensus was to include the word "racist". It looks like somebody did a little drive-by edit that no one noticed (or cared about). I believe it should be replaced, any kind of belief in racial supremacy most definitely qualifies as racist. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Until some ratlike zogbot edits it back, of course.186.212.235.150 (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

To SenseOnes, I'm confused as to what the issue is for you as to why you want to term "racist" to be not only at the end of the opening sentence but also at the beginning. There is no need for the first sentence of the black supremacy article to read exactly like the first sentence of the white supremacy article since they are not the same thing. Here are the two different versions we have so we can discuss them and figure out what works best.

Your version. "Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry towards non-black people."

My version. "Black supremacy is an ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry towards non-black people."

I just want to say, on the page for White supremacy, it refers to it as a "racist ideology". It would be unfair to not refer to Black supremacy as the same, as it is in fact, the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.182.89 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning the fact that black supremacy is racist in the first sentence (indeed I would have a problem if we did not do that) and my version does that as yours does. Unlike white supremacy (which is arguably a more capacious form of racism historically speaking), black supremacy is usually thought of primarily in terms of anti-white racism and anti-Semitism--facts which I feel we should mention from the outset. If we use your version and stick the word racist in the beginning of the sentence we are essentially saying that black supremacy is racist two times, and quite frankly the phrase "racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism" is just not well written as it is repetitive. It is for this reason that I think we should stick to my version. It's hardly a whitewash (no pun intended) as the sentence clearly lays out the racist nature of black supremacy with the phrase "anti-white racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry towards non-black people." Your version just seems like overkill, and there is nothing which forces us to model the first sentence here on the first sentence of the white supremacy article (quite frankly, though I think white supremacy is incredibly racist, I don't know if I approve of having that word in the first sentence--maybe changing the second sentence to "political ideology rooted in racism" would be better).

If you have an alternate proposal for the first sentence of this article please discuss it here so we can avoid other reversions. Also bear in mind that this is purely a stylistic (i.e. not political) question for me--I simply think your sentence does not read well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I want to standardize the black & white supremacy articles, is because im tired of double standards in this area. For me it is a matter of bettering the quality of wikipedia. Usually the black supremacy article DID have "racist" in the beggining.

Now, you hinted about white supremacy being worse (lets face it, thats what you said) then black supremacy. This seems for me to imply the real reason you want this to be this way. I probably wont do anything more now, because im no vandal, but I want you to consider trying to make the black supremacy article with same standards as the white supremacy.

Now, im not talking about how many have died due to which ideology here, but black supremacy is often less seperatistic and more pro-violent and aggressive in nature then white supremacy, a good example is Kamau Kambon who not only advocated the inferiority of whites, the need for seperation but also the need for killing all whites in the world, yes racial genocide, he said that on C-Span, thats right, government television. Thats extremely rare for even white nationalists, and there was total media silence about it for a year and a half, when Hannity & Colmes took it up. What im trying to say, is just that you have to standardize these articles so that the message/point that both ideologies are considered SIMILARLY controversial and unacceptable is impossible to miss.

Because right now, black supremacy normally isnt taken seriously by the media. But it is real, its here & growing and we need to stop it and the only way to stop it is at least mention that its racist. Now I know things have gotten better, even on wikipedia, and this is mostly a matter of exact articulation, but its important anyhow. SenseOnes 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of Kamau Kambon (from Wikipedia actually) and find his comments completely disgusting. In the long, historical view (which is what I tend to take on questions like these) white supremacy is, however, absolutely worse than black supremacy. I don't think there is any way to argue with that. There is nothing that even remotely compares with Nazism, or what the Belgians did in the Congo, or apartheid in South Africa, or antebellum slavery and Jim Crow in the United States. Personally I could not find Kambon more repellent/disturbing, but he has not killed, tortured, or generally subjugated millions of people. But all of this is beside the point. Both white and black supremacy are racist--on that we clearly agree--so it is good that we refer to both as such in the opening sentence of both articles. As I said feel free to propose an alternate version for this article that moves the word racist closer to the beginning of the sentence without making the sentence repetitive. Otherwise I think we can leave it how it is, which seems to be your inclination at this point based on your last comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and even agree, with the point you're trying to make, Bigtimepeace, but I think you are wording things wrong. White supremacy isn't "worse" than black supremacy. White supremacy has been, historically, more wide-spread than black supremacy. But, in terms of morality, black supremacy is just as bad as white supremacy. Zigra (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Zigra

Zigra, I agree with you- in theory, black and white supremacy are both equally repulsive and disturbing; one is not "worse" or "better" than the other, in principle. The fact that white supremacy has brought about more tangible action and physical harm in the world does not change the fact that both doctrines are based in the same racist conceptions. Furthermore, slavery and colonialism should be placed in context: Europeans developed well beyond any other people in the world starting from the 16th century onwards. Still being ethically primitive by today's standards, a more advanced people in those mercantilistic and burgeoning capitalistic days would have little to stop it from exploiting a less developed and more primitive people. Thus, it is not that whites immediately believed they were superior and better than blacks, but rather that they saw an opportunity and they exploited it. The African Slave Trade article discusses how most slaves taken from Africa were actually sold to the Europeans by other black Africans, not to mention that the Arab Slave Trade had already been well under way for over 500 years prior to the Europeans even setting foot in Africa. Blacks in Africa were also exploiting others that were weaker than them, but in their case, it was a weaker black tribe or a weaker black nation, since they did not have the resources to travel to another area and take advantage of another race. The Europeans, who had previously also exploited their own kind in the massive enslavement of Slavs, which is where the world "slave" comes from, were now powerful enough to transition from an exploitation of their own people to the exploitation of another people, the latter option being cheaper since the Eastern Europeans were more difficult to enslave and conquer than the relatively primitive black Africans. A further contextual note on white supremacy should be noted in the fact that the Great Divergence, the period of rapid technological and cultural development that marked a clear separation of the Western World from the rest of the globe, gave much more fodder to the idea of white supremacy than the idea of black supremacy: when a people sees that they are more culturally and technologically advanced than another people, it is not a huge leap to develop the idea that they are "superior" to the lesser developed people; most humans today believe they are superior to animals, and sadly, this logic carried over to race relations with very unfortunate consequences. This makes for an explanation of why white supremacy was, and to a lesser extent, still is, a much more potent force in the world than black supremacy. When these things are considered, it is much more difficult to argue that white supremacy is, in principle, worse than black supremacy or that white people are inherently any more or any less "evil" or "good" than any other people. Both black and white supremacy are equally racist ideologies- the main reason why white supremacy had so much more influence in the world is because the European people, and their descendants in the United States, became the most powerful force this planet has ever seen, and they used this power to exploit other people who were unlike them and easy to exploit, that is, until their ethics caught up to their technological innovation, together with the subjugated people becoming much more resistant to oppression.--Vost 22:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Current reversion battling (9/28/07). This needs to stop. Some editors want my version posted above in this section, while others want the version offered by SenseOnes (incidentally that editor has not been involved in this current revert war). I've posted my rationale for the phrase "an ideology" (i.e. not "a racist ideology") above and repeatedly asked editors from the other side, in particular User:Rbaish, to chime in with their thoughts so we can come to some kind of consensus. So far no one has done so. Please do so now. Perhaps we can find a middle group on which all parties can agree. In any case, let's talk about it, and end these silly rv battles, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The white supremacy page says in the first sentence that it IS a racist ideology, This article merely says that it is "often thought of in connection with" racism. There is a big difference. By definition racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. If the white supremacy page says that it is indeed a racist ideology (not simply thought of in connection with) then so must this page. It's pretty clear cut and simple. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in here, but I have to disagree that it is "pretty clear cut and simple." White supremacy and black supremacy are not the same thing--we do not necessarily have to describe one the same way we do the other. This is even more so the case with Black power and White power, which are extremely different. As I said above, I have no particular objection to calling black supremacy "racist" more directly in the beginning of the sentence. I do object to creating a poorly worded sentence where racism is mentioned twice as I also mentioned above. Actually, if I had my druthers, I think the term racism should be taken out of the lead of the white supremacy article as well. As another editor mentioned in an edit summary for this article, the KKK article (obviously about an extremely racist organization) actually is a good model for NPOV writing (for example it says the KKK has "advocated" for certain beliefs like "white supremacy, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, racism..." but does not use these words as adjectives to describe the KKK). This is my preferred option for both the black and white supremacy articles, but I have a feeling regular editors of the white supremacy article would not go for it and I don't really feel like getting into an argument about that.

If some kind of parity between the first sentence of the black and white supremacy articles--i.e. where the term "racist" is front and center--is extremely important to some people I would not stand in the way of that happening, but at least rephrase the opening somehow so it does not refer to "a racist ideology" and "anti-white racism" in the same sentence. It's repetitive and sounds bad, so let's come up with an alternate phrasing if necessary, or just leave it as it is now, or try to make both the white and black supremacy articles more NPOV.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Black Power" and "Black Supremacy" are toooootally different animals. "White Power" and "White Supremacy" are not, which is to say "Black Supremacy" and "White Supremacy" are akin in a racist sense whereas "White Power" (maintaining or reasserting the power of whites over nonwhites in a manner consistent with America's pre-20th-century history) and "Black Power" (a demand for an equitable position in mainstream society denied for centuries) are not. I'm not saying Black Power does not have a racist aspect in some of its proponents, but White Power only has that aspect. There is no usage of White Power that is separate from its racist, American Nazi Party connotations. Ford MF 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For someone whose name derives from a British novelist, it seems strange that you think there is no meaningful usage outside America. However, you are, I think essentially right about the central point. Nevertheless, there is a difference between the Byron de la Beckwiths of the past and sone some 'white rights' groups today, who do seems to believe they are discriminated against. This does not alter the fact that black suprematism is racist, while black power movements are not (or not for the most part). Paul B 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...actually, no they are not. "Black Power" has similarities to "Black Supremacy", although not as many similarities as "White Power" has to "White Supremacy." There is a racist contingent within the "Black Power" movement that has used and is using society's condoning of "Black Power" as a vehicle to further their sick, racist garbage. Therefore, to state that "Black Power" is "toooootally" different from "Black Supremacy" is categorically false. You may or may not be a black supremacist trying to cover up the truth. Hopefully, you're not a black racist since most blacks I've talked to seem to be naturally inclined towards accepting the racist propaganda of the black supremacy movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BLACK SUPREMACY IS A RACIST IDEOLOGY IF WHITE SUPREMACY IS A RACIST IDEOLOGY This is a terrible definition that obscures the topic via a politically motivated and overdetermined account of black organizations that are only called "black supremacist" vis-a-vis white supremacist groups, which are not their composite. What some call black supremacy is a response to racism and actual physical violence historically directed at black bodies. This definition needs serious reconsideration if in fact wikipedia is reputable in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.46.249 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

how to fix this article

In some kinds of academic discourse it's considered incorrect to use the term "racism" to describe what are essentially racist actions by an oppressed minority. I understand, and even, in certain contexts agree with this. However, I don't see anything wrong with calling Black supremacy racist when were talking about the kind of Black supremacy that explicitly says that non-black people are inferior.

The problem I have with this article and the article on Black Power is that they both, at times, conflate the legitimate, if reactionary, anti-racist, black empowerment movements with cultish and fringe ideas and groups that have little or no currency in the greater US black community. A comparison would be if you equated all people who are pro-life with skin heads. I bet there are a lot of pro-life skin heads, and both groups have a lot of white people in them but they don't really have anything to do with each other. (!)

In order to fix this article and the article on black power we need to realize that there are racist fringe groups, and describe them, and their history and motivation fairly.

I have a few questions:

1. Is every group listed here a "self described" black supremacy group? Or are some of these groups concerned about "black power" (there is a difference!)
2. Do we represent the history of these groups and the racial climate they grew out of fairly?

futurebird 00:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The answers are obviously no and no. The Nation of Islam cannot be represented as simply a "black supremacist" group that believes in "sacrificial killing and ritualistic murder"--sans any caveats as is the case currently in the article--and anyone who thinks it can does not know much about the NOI (I'm no expert, nor partisan of the group, myself). And of course this article is completely lacking in any sense of history or any discussion of power differentials between whites and blacks historically. The article used to be be even more disastrous (with sections arguing that Lauryn Hill and other rappers are black supremacists, as is Congressman Keith Ellison), and I think all we can do at this point is keep out the worst nonsense. I don't see a whole lot of hope for this thing in the near term and maybe not at all, but in a way it's existence might be good as it keeps some of this stuff out of the Black power article which is actually important, even though currently it's also a bit of a disaster.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above for the most part. I personally would term the NOI as black supremacist based on some of their teachings on race, but I agree it doesn't support "sacrificial killing and ritualistic murder," and it certianly doesn't self-identify as a black supremacist group.Yahel Guhan 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

he NOI first came to public notice because of a ritual murder, but it was committed by one individual. Paul B 12:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This article describes "Black supremacy" as the belief that Blacks are superior to other races. This by definition is a racist belief. The American Heritage: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Saying that the belief that Blacks are superior to other races is not racist is utterly wrong and it needs to be changed immediately. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying it is not racist and the article does not say that either. What gives you that impression? My concern is with the wording of the sentence, as I believe I have already explained. Please propose a wording that would work for you and let's discuss it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This (current) wording works for me: "Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often thought of in connection with anti-white racism, antisemitism and bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I'm getting the sense that you're not reading the talk page comments above very closely. The problem with that sentence (see above when I described this in detail) is that it is repetitive and mentions racism twice which is just unnecessary and not very good writing. I'm wondering if we can find a third version that works for everyone. I think it makes sense to mention specifically that black supremacy is associated with anti-white racism and anti-semitism (as opposed to, say, anti-Japanese racism) in the first sentence. What if we removed the phrase "most often thought of in connection with" and replaced it with something stronger. For example how about something like this:

Black supremacy is an ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people that is usually manifested in anti-white racism, antisemitism and bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry.

Would that, or something similar, work? I think the point that it is racist comes through loud and clear there but it avoids using the word racist two times in one sentence. If you have another proposal I'd be happy to consider it--I'm really just interested in ending the rv wars here. I would note that Rbaish has again added in the "a racist ideology" term though he (again) refuses to discuss it here at all. I won't revert him but will instead discuss the situation here on talk, but I will note that this is par for the course with this user, who is very interested in pushing his POV but not interested (apparently) in talking about it here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry.

That fixes the problem of repeating the "racism" yet still makes it clear that it's a racist ideology. It also removes the details of which specific races and generalizes it to all races not of African ancestry. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds doable to me, though personally I think it is good to mention that the bigotry is directed against whites. This is clearly the case, and indeed probably some forms of black supremacy would not have any problem with other non-white persons who are not "black." The content of the article makes clear that most of these groups have a problem with whites, and this also speaks to the fact that "black supremacy" usually comes out of societies which are white dominated but with an oppressed group of blacks (a point which should be stressed in the article, but I'll leave that to the side). So how about this:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly members of the white race.

I would be okay with that, though it might be good to add a sentence about anti-semitism afterward. We should also probably adjust the second paragraph, which mentions racism yet again. I still think that both this and the white supremacy article would ideally avoid the label "racist ideology" in favor of a more NPOV construction, but I don't see that on the horizon so I'm fine with the above as a stop-gap measure to end further edit warring. If a couple of other folks are okay with it I think we should go ahead and insert it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would object to this because of clear NPOV construction. I think the old construction is much more neutral and much better written. I fail to see the logic that black supremacy msut have the 5th word be "racist" just because the 5th word of the white supremacy article is "racist." The mistake of this is that white and black supremacy are different. It would be inproper to havee the two articles be exactly the same with the words "white" and "black" switched. My second issue is the new version ignores antisemitism, which is equally as much a characteristic of black supremacy as much as anti-white racism is. I think a better solution would be to phraise it as follows:

Black supremacy is an ideology which holds that black people are superior to other people and is most often characterized with anti-white racism, antisemitism and bigotry towards anyone not of African ancestry.

I think the white supremacy is generally more associated with racism than black supremacy, as there are no forms of white supremacy (as far as I am aware) which cannot be termed "racist." Most forms of black supremacy are "racsit," but not all forms are. Many things associated with black supremacy are not in fact racist per se. That said, racism is a prevelant characteristic of black supremacy in most cases, but it isn't cut and dry.Yahel Guhan 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

By definition "Black Supremacy" is racist. Any belief that holds blacks superior than other races is racism, by definition of the word "racism". If an ideology does not hold blacks superior to other races then it's not Black Supremacy. Moreover, antisemitism is racism. Your version makes it only appear as if prejudice against whites is racism but Antisemitism is different. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

by definition according to what/who? Second, not all groups labeled black supremacist technically hold blacks to be superior per se. Second, all black racist organizations do not believe blacks are superior, but are still called black supremacist groups. Some just want to even out the playing field, and do so through racist means. And second, antisemitism is different, Jews are a race, ethnic group, and a religion. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews as a race, as a religion, and as an ethnic group, so no; Antisemitism in itself is not just a form of racism. Blacks and whites are just a race. Yahel Guhan 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's baloney. The word "supremacism" means an idelogy of superiority. If a group don't "hold blacks to be superior per se" then they are not supremacists by definition. Anti-Semitism is rather beside the point, but it is not used to refer to any disagreement with or objection to Judaism. Otherwise every non-Jew would by definition be anti-Semitic. Paul B 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No. That depends on what the sources state. If what you say is true, that black supremacist groups have to hold blacks superior, than the term is greatly overused in our society. As far as our article is concerned, we present what is presented by the sources, so if an organization is characterized as being black surpemacist by the sources, it is black supremacist by wikipedia's definition. The organization may not, however, believe blacks are "superior" to some/all other races even though it has the label of black supremacy. Yahel Guhan 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Racist) The American Heritage: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. You say that "all black racist organizations" do not believe that blacks are superior? Then how exactly are they "racist"? Also, Anti-Semitism based on race would be racism. Discrimination against Jews unrelated to culture or religion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For example a black person/group may understand that white people are dominant to them because of racism and/or persecution, in which case they may want to be equal, and act in a racist manner to acheive equilization (i.e randomly killing white people to get revenge for a hate crime against black people). No supremacy here, but racism nontheless.Yahel Guhan 04:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so relevant to the heart of the matter, but according to the Wiki article Antisemitism "is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group." In other words antisemitism can be about religion. This of course does not mean that "every non-Jew would by definition be anti-Semitic" as Paul suggests, it means that one could be deemed antisemitic if they expressed hatred toward the Jewish religion. But whatever.

I'm wondering if Yahel would consider dropping his objection to the phrasing I proposed and Wikidudeman agreed to above. Mainly because it's not that big of a deal given how many other problems there are with this article. I completely reject any claim that black and white supremacism are the "same thing" or that "racism is racism" and that's all we have to say about it, but it's difficult to argue that black supremacy is not inherently racist (though I agree theoretically there could be exceptions, I just can't think of any). What should be elaborated on is the societal conditions which generally produce black supremacist groups/thought, as these are vastly different from the conditions which produce white supremacy (white supremacy, for example, was the de jure or de facto official ideology of the federal and state governments of the US until basically the 1960s). So there's no reason to make the leads of this and the white supremacy article identical (there's at least as many reasons not to do that), but I also don't see much point in fighting over whether the term racist/racism is the 5th word or the 12th. If we can agree on a sentence we can stop discussing and reverting and just move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see; prehaps we should work on the rest of the article first, but for now no. I objected because I have issue with labeling all black supremacy and related concepts a "racist ideology," especially when certian aspects may not be racist. I may drop my objection once the article is fixed. Yahel Guhan 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I was the original person to even start this discussion, by requiring some kind of standardization with the definition of racism. I havent checked up on the discussion for a while, but now I'm here nevertheless. I like this version best:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly members of the white race.

No matter what you try to say or do, you cannot deny the definition of racism: a belief that holds one race to be superior to other races (the simple version), all respected encyclopedias agree on that, "even" wikipedia does. So black supremacy is by definition a racist idelogy. What you associate with the word racist other then the definitive meaning of it is your own business, Wikipedia should not deal with that since the rules clearly state to stick to the facts and a NPOV. SenseOnes 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As we have already stated, but you wouldn't know, since you didn't read the discussion, it isn't that simple. Standardization is inappropiate; it is the equivilant to stating both forms are identical when they are not. Yahel Guhan 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, but there is no argumentation for why standardization is inappropriate when it comes to definitive racism. I am not talking about 'two forms', I am talking about the word racism, its meaning and any racial supremacys definitive racist nature. SenseOnes 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

First of all, a small clarification: black supremacy is per definition a racist ideology. Racism: noun 1. belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others, 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination, 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Related forms: Racist, noun, adjective. That is out of the question. The discussion here is whether to include the word racist in the first sentence, which it currently, is not. I agree that it should, because it per definition is a racist ideology, so its the definitive truth, and its a very significantly racist ideology since it matches the exact definition (as all other forms of supremacy) of racism. Very simple. My suggestion:

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is usually manifested in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly white people and Jews.

White people and jews, because black racists and supremacists often are antisemites, with violently racist anti-white oppinions (example: Kamau Kambon, Khalid Abdul Muhammad). Tell me what you think. SenseOnes 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That one looks good also. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a day or two to see if any other editors are interested in discussing this, before I do anything. SenseOnes 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like only 1 person disagrees with it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

... usually manifested in bigotry towards ...

Is this the most important part in every case? I don't know if that is true. The goal of many of these groups tends to focus more on puffing up how great black people are rather than hating whites and sometimes Jews. But I'm far from an expert on this, just speaking on the limited reading I've done, I don't think that this works. futurebird 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article describes Black Supremacy as the belief that Blacks are superior to other races. Regardless of actual "discrimination", Belief that one race is superior to another is Racism by definition. If a group does not believe that Blacks are superior to other races then that group isn't a black supremacist group. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But is the main expression of this bigotry towards others? That is do they spend most of their energy promoting hatred for white people or are they focused on black people most of the time? That is it is usually manifested in praise of the black "race" and calls for retaliation for the perceived wrongs and evils of "whites." ? futurebird 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter as far as the definition goes. If they think that blacks are superior to other races then they are racist. Regardless of if they discriminate against those other races or not. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But, we're not talking about racism, here, were talking about "bigotry towards" people, an aspect of racism. And I'm asking if this is what the usual manifestation of "black supremacy" is? Is it the primary activity and purpose of these groups? Or is it one of many purposes? That's why I'm objecting to the way this is worded. futurebird 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it says "usually manifested towards". We could change "usually" to "often" or even "sometimes". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races. It can result in bigotry towards persons who are not of African ancestry, particularly white and Jewish people.

Maybe this???? I don't know. futurebird 17:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"It can result in" sounds like we're talking about a drug or something, not an ideology. How about:

Black Supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is sometimes manifested in bigotry towards persons not of African ancestry, particularly white and Jewish people. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it won't work. I've just been thinking about this sentence for WAY too long. Let's see what the other editors think. futurebird 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much the agreed upon version at this point. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this. We can tweak little things but I think this is serviceable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. SenseOnes 07:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I liked it too, so where did "racialist" suddenly come from. Racialism completely negates the supremacy aspects of black supremacy. Lofichic 00:53, 18 December 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.56.228 (talk)

This was some undetected vandalism going against consensus. Its corrected now. SenseOnes (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

" "It can result in" sounds like we're talking about a drug or something, not an ideology. " There's a difference? --63.241.174.129 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, this is me. Argh, timeout. --The Centipede (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it would appear that the first sentence no longer matches the version approved by consensus. Maybe I'm just stupid and can't tell, this thread is really long, someone like to check me on that? I was under the impression that the consensus was that black supremacy WAS going to include that it was a "racist" ideology in the first sentence, that would appear to be gone.Pstanton 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this related to the African Diaspora?

Can someone explain how this is within the African Diaspora wiki project? As I see it, discrimination has nothing to do with that and everything to do with discrimination.... Pstanton 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't even see it as discrimination. There's no real evidence that Black supremacists systematically discriminate against anyone. Discrimination is a practice, not a theory/thought. deeceevoice (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if there were such evidence, black supremacy would still be related to the African diaspora. Discrimination is one of the more significant aspects in the history of African Americans, and it is in this context of discrimination that ideologies of black supremacy are studied and interpreted. I don't see how this could not be closely linked to the African diaspora, no matter how I judge these ideologies, personally. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, discrimination is a practice. This doesn't fit. deeceevoice (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

False- black supremacy is discrimination and it is racism; it fits perfectly into these categories. Black supremacists consciously and purposely discriminate in their affairs against those who are not black in favor of those who are black; they make genocidal speeches and discriminate their company by selecting those who agree with or are to benefit from their racist rhetoric. According to www.dictionary.com, the definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination." The definition begins with "treatment OR consideration"- black supremacists do both: they treat and consider those who are not black as inferior to blacks, thus black supremacy is discrimination, it is racism, and a denial of this is nothing short of a veiled attempt to validate black supremacy. It is not necessary to have institutional racism or institutional discrimination to have racism or discrimination; those are but mere subsets of the broader categories of racism and discrimination. Funny how you black supremacists are putting forward these cute arguments trying to make it seem like your ideology is not racist or discriminatory, when in fact it is quite possibly more racist and more discriminatory than current examples of white supremacy.--talk 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.72 (talk)

"Active" groups

Neither the Nuwaubian Nation nor Tribu Ka can be considered "active" groups any more. I'm going to change the header to say "contemporaneous" organizations and one of you clever folks can decide if you want to create a defunct group list or what. I'll also update the text to note that the organizations are kaput. Reve (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Add Organizations

Can the following qualify as Black Supremacy Organizations?

• 100 Black Men
• Omega Psi Phi
• The Rocks, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.221.52 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bobo Shanti sourcing

Can anyone find reasonable citations for the statements in the Bobo Shanti section? I'm seeing just enough on google books to believe it's probably accurate but not enough to convince myself beyond a reasonable doubt. The article on the Bobo Shanti is in sad shape and is no help for sourcing this material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Black supremacy → Black supremacism
• White supremacy → White supremacism

–

• -ism indicates an ideology. The parent article is also at "Supremacism". --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 07:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Article editor (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to "Black Supremacy Movement" or something along those lines. I agree that "Supremacism" is technically correct, but IMO it's not the common name for the ideology; a google search reveals twice as many hits for "black supremacy movement" as "black supremacism", and three times more for its "white" counterpart. Regardless, I agree that "Black Supremacy" is not the appropriate title, and I'd rather move it to 'supremacism' than keep it as it is.--Xiaphias (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Copied from Talk:White supremacy Apteva (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree as per comments in previous section. And in the longer run: create another article about "white supremacy" as an institution or characteristic of society. groupuscule (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to "White Supremacy Movement" as per my comments on the Black Supremacy move discussion.--Xiaphias (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• Strong oppose, both these proposed titles and the "movement" ones are a far, far cry from satisfying WP:COMMONNAME. Red Slash 07:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • True. Supremacy is much more common. Apteva (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead: "Black supremacy is a racist ideology"

Where are the reliable sources that support the statement in the lead that "black supremacy is a racist ideology"? Why is such a statement being made in Wikipedia's voice, like it's an incontrovertible truth? I think it should be attributed to its sources, per WP:LABEL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sentence is from #First_sentence above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources—or any sources at all—cited in that eight-year-old discussion. Is that really the basis on which you misuse rollback to undo good-faith edits?

I'll ask again: Where are the reliable sources that support the statement in the lead that "black supremacy is a racist ideology"? Consensus is nice, but it doesn't overrule the need for verifiability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle is not rollback. I reverted edits to the lead sentence that miscited npov and were not discussed on talk page. You've started discussion (which to be most honest I've avoided on this page because if the shitstorm I predict if we do remove that word from the lead sentence which really doesn't belong, especially from my sociological perspective). Let's see if any sources describe the ideology as racist (some seem to describe individuals that way). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

SPLC refers to black supremacist groups as racist: [2] [3] and [4] for example EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for missing the (TW) at the end of your edit summary. I've stricken my comment above.

With respect to the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party, I've edited both their Wikipedia articles and I know that the description of those groups as racist/antisemitic/hate groups is attributed, not stated as fact in the encyclopedic voice. Which is why I was so surprised to see that this article states so boldly that "black supremacy is a racist ideology". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll look more tomorrow. Maybe others will chime in. Like I said, I honestly don't think it belongs in the lead, but I've had enough drama the past couple weeks with this arb case and the events that lead to it that I don't want more. Thanks for striking too. Off to bed for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I recall it is covered in part in the books "Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies" edited by someone, forgot who and in "Power and ideology in education" by Karabel and Halsey. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, ThurstonHowell3rd. I'll look up the books. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

See the RfC at Talk:White supremacy/Archive 3#Request for comments: first sentence of lead, as well as above discussions. Maybe there needs to be a wikiwide RfC to decide, but until that point the latest consensus is to keep the word racist. If it is in one it should be in the other.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm browsing on my phone, but I don't think I see any sources in that RfC. Can you point me to the policy that says consensus overrides the need for verifiability? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Loriendrew: Can't have false parity just because they both say "supremacy". Malik is correct that we must reflect the sources, not our personal opinions. If the sources treat them differently, so must we. (c.f., MRA vs feminism) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You can have parity because of the definition of the word racist: The dictionary is your source. Racist- Noun 1. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. The fact that both groups believe their own is superior to others means they are both racist ideologies by definition, therefore no other "source" is necessary.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304040253/http://www.jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6945&ref=daily_briefing to http://www.jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6945&ref=daily_briefing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Major source problem

I just stumbled across this article and have a serious concern about the article's quality and the sourcing - there does not appear to be a single citation to a RS here that supports treating "black supremacy" as a single, coherent concept, that defines it in a coherent way, that defines the listed groups as "black supremacist," or that supports what is said about "black supremacy" in the lede. It looks to me as though someone has cobbled together some quotations and examples from various black nationalist or black separatist groups, and has synthesized a description/category of "black supremacy" based on that - and on the assumption that there must be a "reverse" version of White supremacy. I am not seeing any evidence that "black supremacy" is a real category that RS use to describe these groups. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Tags -- Including Original Research

This article has long-standing sourcing issues -- there are unsourced statements in the article that have been tagged for more than five years. There are discussions above on this page about the fact that the word "racist" in the opening sentence is unsourced and unsupported by the rest of the article. There are also discussions above on this page about the eclectic (and often unsourced) selection of organizations labeled as black supremacist. It's time to clean house. Put up or shut up.

Don't bother replying if you haven't read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Thank you. 66.87.115.23 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Other Groups

Has anyone discussed and considered including the "Counter Racism" movement. There is a book called "The United Independent Code/System/Concept..." by Neely Fuller Jr. His followers promote the idea that African Americans are victims of "White Supremacy" commited by a "white supremacist system" in the U.S. They describe a series of strategies to counter this system. These strategies include the "Maximum Emergency Compensatory Action" which is basically a suicidal/terroristic act in which the "victim" of "white supremacy" must murder a white person and then kill himself. The followers of this group have a number of instructional videos on Youtube. While they argue that "victims" can't be "racist", they marginalize all "white people" as being part of the "System of White Supremacy". Seems to me this qualifies as a "Black Supremacist" group. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We had an article on Neely Fuller Jr. but it was deleted per this discussion. His book was from 1969, and in looking at the deleted article (which isn't very detailed) in doesn't strike me as being particularly black supremacist, probably more in line with the Black Power movement (I'm not sure though). If the book, Fuller, and/or the "Counter Racism" movement have received significant attention in secondary sources and been described as "black supremacist" (we cannot merely apply that label ourselves) then it might well warrant inclusion. We'll need some sources though other than the groups' own works or web page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, hard to believe they voted to delete that article. He is well known to African Americans, and quite controversial (much like Frances Welsing, who does have a Wikipedia article). Either way, its not "Black Power" because it pivots on the notion of victimization, though I think it is a supremacist group because it marginalizes a race of people and promotes suicidal terrorism and should be mentioned here. I will look for some sources which say so. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does he promote "suicidal terrorism?" Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In the "manifesto" I just referenced. Pages 207-233. 'Maximum Emergency Compensatory Action: The swift, efficient, unannounced execution/elimination of one or more racist/white supremacists by an individual non-white person acting openly and alone at a time and place of his or her own choosing, and after commensing such action immediately continues without respite or surrender until he or she is forced to eliminate self rather than be eliminated or captured by others'. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What an incredibly narrow-sited reference, obviously biased, and racist power-move there; deleting an article about someone because a majority white consensus cannot be formed on if he is 'notable' to non-white people.. and pulling a phrase out from a section entitled WAR, which may have added context, was swift there, EyePheonix. You could just have well pulled a random line from the bible and said "There! See!". 2602:306:B85C:DE90:51:B8D4:FF7D:9180 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a King Nobel section would be good. He was the one who had that youtube video out for black supremacy and said he was part of the Fuck Your Flag movement and I think Black Lives Matter. He was cited in mainstream newsAbranson (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I believe the opening paragraph should be trimmed down to only contain the first two sentences. The first sentence is a definition of the topic, and the second expands on it slightly. The rest of the paragraph appears to contain roughly the same sentiment as the "Relationship to White Supremacy" section, but without any citations for its claims. It is also vaguely worded and appears to be tangential to the definition of the topic, as it refers to variants of racial supremacy and "some forms" of such without naming specifically which ones are being referenced. The article would lose nothing by removing this clumsy segment, as the same material is covered more eloquently and with citations later on. StrayDotM (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It summarizes the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. No citations are needed if the statement is backed up by sourced content in the body of the article (again per WP:LEAD). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Forced blackness

The condition which white rightist extremists or pure black culture supporters are not accepting a person of mixed descent as a multiracial but instead force him/her physically or under psychological pressure to identify as black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4107:9200:E48F:BB3A:DD69:1A9A (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any Wikipedia:RELIABLE SOURCES to support your claim? Mitchumch (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

With or without sources, what does it have to do with the subject of this article, black supremacy? The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to serve as a forum for editors to express their views of black or multiracial people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a racist period.

Any white person that would mouth off like this with respect to black people wouldn't get a pass for 'get all white' with his/her views about the need to exterminate another ethnic group. This guy is an ignorant monster. This isn't free speech this is hate speech. If we're going to coddle his bigotry and call it a 1st Amendment right then we might as well give Hitler the Noble Peace prize for following through an almost successfully exterminating Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.132.177 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is the "he" to whom you refer? Paul B (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I think the previous comment refers to a certain racist black ex-professor (I think his name was Kamou Kamdon or something like that) who made a speech advocating for the "extermination of all white people." You can view his psychotic episode on YouTube (search for "the most racist black guy ever").ModulationHJ (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No this whole article is demeaning to Black people. One cannot equate a couple fringe Black groups with White Supremacists. First of all, they are an oppressed people, so inflammatory speech against white people is usually a reaction to that. This article must be deleted or significantly changed. It displays a sentiment that implies that black racism and white racism are equal (they are not, white racism is much worse, and trying to equate the two is really just being racist against black people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.21 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOT CENSORED & Wikipedia:GREATWRONGS. And black racism is the same as white racism Avono (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor this article, I'm just pointing out that large parts of it sound like it is written by a biased white person. White racism affects black people on a much larger level (and more negatively) than black racism affects white people (and sure it is fair to call it black racism when it is fanatical). One should not imply that it is equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.21 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Its your job to find sources from black authors than. Introduce them and then we can discuss that, until then any proposed change would be WP:UNDUE and a WP:NPOV violation. Avono (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair Enough. I'll play by your rules if I have to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.21 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 February 2015‎

I cannot find any serious scholarship (such as an accredited journal or book) that mentions the concept of "Black Supremacy". There are is plenty of serious scholarship on the subject of white supremacy. If Black supremacy is only being discussed on the internet (which I believe that it is), and virtually nowhere else in public discourse, than there should not be a wikipedia article on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzwirn (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Such is using the Epidemiological knowledge system of the White Male - nothing will ever be 'scholarly' enough for you. 2602:306:B85C:DE90:51:B8D4:FF7D:9180 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See above comment for some good ol' fashioned sexism and racism. JordanGero (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Other issues

The article seems to spend more time discussing one person's view of the history of white supremacy than explaining more about the context for the rise of groups that espouse black supremacy. And in speaking of white supremacy and moral views, there was no reference to the Bible, which many Christians drew on in their efforts to justify their treatment of Africans. Also, did any of these groups realize at the time that Arabs traded in many more Africans in slavery over the centuries than did Europeans? Did that affect their embrace of Islam? If not, why not? Didn't the civil rights movement, Black Power, and other political movements contribute to the rise of groups that espoused black supremacy? what about the anti-colonial movements in Africa and Asia? Just some suggestions for how the article might be developed.Parkwells (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

if 'black supremacy' exists as a demonstrable and notable phenomenon (which isn't in evidence) then this article needs to be about that (otherwise it needs to not exist at all)...it doesn't need to meander around like a personal opinion essay about nothing like it does now...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Good questions; presumably, because most of the groups mentioned in this article are of American provenance, their focus has been on establishing the greatest contrast with the demographic that has most exploited and benefited from chattel slavery in the Americas: whites. Instead of championing white supremacy and Christianity, black supremacy and Islam have become the sine qua non of their identity (not that Islam is diametrically the "opposite" of Christianity; rather, because of its historical opposition and hostility with Christian faiths, it may have been taken as a kind of antithetical alternative). There appears to be at least some irony in this process, as you point out, given that the Arab Slave Trade involved the forced transportation and enslavement of between 10 and 18 million native Africans, compared to estimates of around 12 million for the Atlantic Slave Trade. While the latter lasted roughly four centuries, the former extended from the 9th century to more than halfway through the 20th. Perhaps the groups mentioned in the article simply...failed to do their homework? JordanGero (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

this thread is not relevant to anything in regards to Wikipedia..ie not a discussion forum..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Article Hugely Problematic

As has been pointed out by myself and others above (and apparently pointed out over the years too) this article is a disaster and totally out of whack with Wikipedia policy...A. The lead section is an original research/opinion essay that cites absolutely nothing whatsoever. B. The lead section and the body of the article have absolutely nothing to do with each other..the lead in no way summarizes what is in the body of the article (this was pointed out above by another editor in the preceding TALK section). C. the topic "Black Supremacy" doesn't appear to exist in the real world...there don't appear to be any notable sources that cite/refer to "Black Supremacy" as a notable phenomenon/movement. It appears someone decided on their own to gather together a bunch of groups and decided on their own to label these groups "Black Supremacy" (ie basically invent the term) in order to create a Wikipedia article. I'm likely going to initiate a AfD for this...any thoughts first?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(as an IP I can't initiate the process, so if someone else would...and perhaps copy in my above statement to the AfD discussion page that would be created..)68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:68.48.241.158, as an IP I believe you can do an AfD, but it would be unlikely to succeed IMO. 'Deletion isn't clean-up' and I think the view would be that this subject is sufficiently notable to deserve an article EVEN if this one isn't it (a position I would agree with). I don't want to influence you, but in view of your 'change of heart', you might wish to strike your support above. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You agreed that the article teeters on being a hoax article, and that you can't find sources to suggest the topic even exists...but then you vote to keep it without even mentioning the research you've done? what gives??68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

this subject is sufficiently notable to deserve an article EVEN if this one isn't it . My trawling through the sources suggested to me that there are/have been individuals, possibly sometimes groups, sometimes beliefs that have been reliably described as 'supremacist' in nature. How serious were these? When? Did they gain much currency? I don't know, but probably not much. I'm pretty sure that the current claims about groups is mostly crap, but I know that an article being 'crap' holds zero weight in a deletion discussion. Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

but AfD can also lead to moving the article to DRAFT or merging content into other articles too etc...consider putting our above reply in that AfD as I challenged you in there too...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the article at RationalWiki http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Black_supremacy might have some sources which can help with this, maybe, although I acknowledge from that article the best source for this title might be the quoted white supremacist who describes others as being his black counterparts. But I have trouble seeing, as per what I see in that article, there might be a real OR/SYNTH problem with establishing the notability of this topic as a separate entity. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I made the edit to align the content with the source provided; please see diff. The extensive quoting from the writings of the organisation's leader appears to be undue weight. The rest of the material that was included in the ref appears to be either OR, undue or irrelevant. In a similar vein, I removed extensive quoting from a primary source, which looks to be OR to me; please see diff.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is about black supremacy; your edits regarding the group in question move away from a focus on their supremacist beliefs, mentioning instead an amalgamation of concepts ranging from UFOs, Illuminati, Egyptian pyramids, etc. You've also shortened the relevant quotation as to the specifics of their supremacist beliefs, and now you claim that the previous version was the one which was "OR, undue, or irrelevant". It is not OR (sourced to SPLC); it was not undue (it describes the group's supremacist ideology by referencing their folklore origin stories of blacks and whites); and it was not irrelevant (the article is about black supremacist groups, therefore the focus should be on the supremacist ideology about any included groups, not other beliefs that they may or may not hold). On top of that, in case you had not noticed, there is an RfC underway regarding part of the lead (see section above); replacing "ideology" with "belief" does not appear to accord with the practices and convictions of the groups mentioned, and it disrupts evaluation of the RfC contest as the article stands. I have not restored the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead you removed, given that that construction (about black supremacy being based on biological race) appears too broad or speculative as it pertains to the ideology of black supremacy overall. One of the links you removed (to "nizkor.com", I believe) also appears to be OR, so I haven't restored that either. JordanGero (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the edits are constructive, and have restored them. I agree that the change to "belief" better reflects the articles content and sources - and that it needed trimming in the places that ke pared. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This demonstrates the difficulty in defining the article's subject; there's an RfC underway pertaining to the lead, and the edits in question substantively change the lead. Anyways, I'm not about to start an edit war over this. If someone else feels strongly enough about it, they can start an RfC over "belief" vs. "ideology" and whatnot. JordanGero (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The RfC appears to be about whether "Black supremacism is racist or not". It sounded like an opinion poll and did not seem to pertain to the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Characterizing something as an "ideology" or a "belief" pertains to the RfC because of the broadness of the former over the latter; some in the RfC are implying that black supremacy as an "ideology" is too poorly defined to appropriately characterize it as "racist" in the lead without an RS. Changing "ideology" to "belief" narrows the discussion, which in turn could substantively change opinion within the RfC. The rest of your edits, though perhaps constructive, appear to stem from your idea of what the article's subject means, which is at the center of the controversy currently surrounding it. JordanGero (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

My edits are reflective of the sources provided; please see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

My objection did not stem from your edits being unsourced. My own edits were also reflective of the sources provided. You deleted material that I re-added after finding an RS for it (SPLC). Then you proceeded to cut that sourced material and reword it because, you claim, it was "OR, undue, or irrelevant", all of which are seemingly inapposite descriptors of the article's version prior to your edits (if anything, mentioning UFOs, Illuminati, and Egyptian pyramids are irrelevant and undue in this context). You then re-characterized the article's subject as a "belief" rather than an "ideology" without adding an RS to support the recharacterization or heeding my objection regarding the RfC, which is potentially substantively affected following your amendments. As far as removing external links that appear to lead to OR content or removing the mention of biological race in the lead (too speculative to be included without an RS), I have no issue. JordanGero (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified that the material I described as "OR, undue, or irrelevant" was this:

• See also Dr. Malachi York's 9 Principles in the Human Being: "The First Thing That All Nubuns Or Their Offspring Nubian Must Know Is That The Caucasoids Did Not And Still Don't Produce Any Data On Negroids. Nothing You Read About In The Medical Field Applied To Negroids. It All Pertains To The Chemical Make Up Of The Caucasoid Bodies. Nothing In The Mental Field Of The Psychiatrist Pertains To The Negroids. The Caucasoids Cannot Evaluate Our Mental Stability, Or Try To Decipher Why We Do What We Do Because We Do Not Think Or Feel The Way They Do. Nor Do The Caucasoids Know Anything About Us Spiritually. The Caucasoids Are Carnivorous Mammals, Who Are Flesh Eating Killers By Nature. Mongoloids And Others Are Human, Also Mammals Because They Are Mixed. Some Are Carnivores And Some Are Herbivores By Nature. And We Are Deities, Herbivores By Nature Who Are Their Mothers And Fathers. The Caucasoid Were All Grafted From Us, And Mixed With Other Beast To Make Their Beast Like Nature.

I could not quite make out what purpose that served, or even what it was. This appears to be quoting from York's writings, which is OR as I understand it. It's also impossible to read because of every word being capitalised. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That particular quote was within one of the references, not the main article, but I agree that it could be OR and undue. My previous comment regarded the SPLC source on the group York founded, the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors. JordanGero (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The term or the belief/ideology?

Firstly, I agree with what JordanGero says above that "some in the RfC are implying that black supremacy as an "ideology" is too poorly defined to appropriately characterize it … (as racist)". I am one of those above and this seems to me to be the central problem. Whilst we can all find instances of use of the term, we lack any high quality academic sources defining and describing it in depth and possibly any development or history. A suggestion was made at the AfD that the article should focus on the term, not the phenomenon/ideology/belief. Such an article might begin something like:

"Bl Sup is a term used to describe beliefs which (dictionary definition, similar to now) . (Sentence covering when first used). The term has been used to describe the beliefs of individuals and groups in (who those political and religious groups generically are), some of these organisations have also been described as Hate groups.

Thoughts? Does focusing on the term, when used, to describe who and what, by whom, get us out of a mire or lead us into one? Pincrete (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with refocusing on the term. For example, SPLC sources used in the article include the term to describe some of the fringe/cultish groups, but it does not define "black supremacy". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if superficial use of a term in passing would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article...But what can remain? please contribute below in my stubbing thread...we're in a situation where it was determined the article must remain but now no one can find anything in the article that can remain...it's quite hilarious really..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

158, the advantage of focusing on the term is that we are no longer saying 'this group IS', rather 'they were described as in 19ZZ when they did/said this'. There are other articles that follow that format, and yes, non-notable uses would not be included. K.e.coffman, I agree definition is still a problem, which is why I suggested dict def.Pincrete (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this may work. Here's an example: White pride, although it has much more in-depth sources that I've seen so far on "black supremacy". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, Fyddlestix, JordanGero apologies for naming, but input on whether changing focus from 'ideology' to 'term' would be an improvement, would be appreciated. Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with using whatever description of black supremacy can be supported by reliable sources, even if that means paring back the article to the point where it takes a modified Potter Stewart approach to the subject: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it and can cite reliable sources that describe instances of it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll echo Mr. Shabazz's sentiments on this one; since a cogent argument can be made that the available sources on the matter do not provide a unified and accepted definition of the subject or its practice, perhaps a focus on "term" will bring the article in greater accord with the extant sources (at least until other RSs can be found). JordanGero (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an interesting take on "black supremacy" from Cornel West, in his book Race Matters. What's interesting is that "black supremacy" appears in the book only three times; this indicates to me that it's a fairly marginal subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

stub this article

unfortunately, the AfD for this article recently failed to even return to draft status...why this article didn't qualify for simple speedy deletion is absolutely beyond me....I'm likely going to begin stubbing it down to what can be sourced to reduce the utter embarrassment to Wikipedia in having this face the public...any suggestion on what can remain, besides, I suppose the title?68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You pushed hard for deletion, then draft, and now this. WP:STICK... the poor horse begs you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

consensus is clear that this article is a disaster and needs major, major work...I'm planning on contributing to that work..the closer even stated the article should be renominated for AfD if improvements are not made in a reasonable time...what do you suggest can remain to be in accordance with article policy...new things can then be added if they are properly sourced....68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just one point, HighInBC did not say the article "should be renominated", the closure note said "'another AfD may be justified in the future". You need to make sure you accurately quote people. -- GB fan 18:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

okay, sure, whatever..should you care to criticize the above editor's ridiculous suggestion of WPSTICK in this context or just make not needed criticisms of my paraphrasing? (how about responding on your talk page regarding your inappropriate revert? you seem quite silent over there).68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a much needed criticism of your paraphrasing, you left a false impression. Why should I criticize something that makes sense? There was nothing inappropriate about my revert so there is nothing to respond to. -- GB fan 18:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I left such a false impression...it makes sense to suggest I shouldn't contribute to fixing this article based on the consensus? you're an admin? justify that your revert wasn't inappropriate (because "I told you to" doesn't cut it, obviously..but as an admin you know this, I hope)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has suggested you shouldn't contribute to the article. I see where there is an objection to the wholesale removal of content that you keep proposing. I don't need to have any other justification, it is not required and since the closer read it anyway there is zero difference if it had been there. -- GB fan 20:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

if you want to continue discussing your inappropriate revert please do it on your talk page..and I'll respond there if I even care to..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

158 just to be clear, it was me that reverted you. That is something I would VERY rarely do on talk, but in this instance, starting YET ANOTHER SECTION, to say the same thing, was pointless. You've made your point, you think there is almost nothing worth saving. We heard you. Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual revert we were discussing was my revert of an edit to the actual afd. -- GB fan 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Rather than complaining that you couldn't get this deleted, why not start suggesting changes?142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

^collapsed tangent..again, suggestions please as to what should be removed now (most of lead and white supremacy section due to OR/SYNTH etc?) and what should remain for now..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

and I restored it, please let someone who is not involved decide. -- GB fan 13:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

the above collapse of a complete tangent and off-topic discussion (which addresses the topic of the thread in no way whatsoever) is helpful to discussion so that people don't have to wade through a bunch of unconstructive nothing to perhaps contribute to the question I posed in the thread...It all needs to be collapsed including these past few posts..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

RESTART THREAD:: most of the lead is OR/SYNTH (particularly second half) should that be immediately removed? The final section "relationship white supremacy" is an entirely OR/SYNTH opinion piece...should that be entirely removed for now?68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic section

I removed this section, the only connection to "black supremacy" was Independent's article stating that the group "follows the teachings of black American Louis Farrakhan":

Tribu Ka was founded in 2004 by Stellio Capo Chichi ("Kémi Séba"), dubbed "the French Farrakhan" by Jean-Baptiste Marot, in Paris. The group follows the ideology of Louis Farrakhan, the American leader of the Nation of Islam. Their positions have been described as a mix of antisemitic Kemetism and Guénonian Islam. After an investigation of racist incitement, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy dissolved Tribu Ka on July 26, 2006.

Many members came back together, reforming under the name Génération Kémi Séba. In April 2008, a Parisian court verdict ruled that Génération Kémi Séba was a revival of the dissolved group Tribu Ka. In June 2009, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux ordered the dissolution of the group Jeunesse Kémi Séba, founded to replace Génération Kémi Séba.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, I'm afraid there's a lot of removing to come...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nation of Islam & overall history

Just leaving a marker that two notable omissions are Nation of Islam, and any kind of 'historical perspective', the former reminded me of the latter. Pincrete (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing to suggest that this group considers themselves black supremacists or uses the term, but only that SLPC has superficially used the term to describe them..I also see nothing to suggest they think that black people should generally "politically, economically, and socially dominate non-black people."...not that they don't indeed think a lot of goofy things..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No they don't widely see themselves as BlSup, and part at least of what I am trying to do is to identify when/why/to what extent, they (or other groups or individuals within them), have been thus described and by exactly whom. The opening 'definition' remains a problem, yes. Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

your edits to the lead are an improvement but only really because you've simply reduced what is there (as what is there is still just as problematic)...but that clause "politically, economically, and socially dominate non-black people."...where are we getting this from? seems to be pure OR (ie someone simply invented that BlSu should mean this)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That the Nation of Islam is absent from a list of organizations that have been described as black supremacist is like missing the big picture for focusing on the margins. They are the elephant in the room. I haven't counted, but I'd be willing to bet the phrase "black supremacist" has been used to describe the NOI and its leaders more than all other uses of the phrase combined. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a section on the NOI, I removed it quite a while back because there was no (and I couldn't find) a source that actually characterized then as "black supremacist" - even if such sources can be found I think we should be wary of this, as the vast majority of sources on the group don't describe it as supremacist, but rather as black nationalist. The same could be said for many of the groups that have been listed here at one time or another. Devoting a whole section of this article to such group on the strength of a few sources (when a much larger body of sources don't call them supremacist) is undue weight on those few sources, and not NPOV in my opinion. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The NOI states that white people were created in a lab by an evil scientist and imbued with violent tendancies to be used as a slave race of warriors. How is that in any way not black supremacist?142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You may think it's obvious, but it needs to be reliably sourced. And most RS don't describe them as "supremacist." Fyddlestix (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

that's info about a specific bizarre belief they supposedly have. it's not info about "black supremacism"68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Then the info belongs at Nation of Islam and not here - if you want to talk about NOI here, find and use sources that actually call them or their ideas "black supremacist." Fyddlestix (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, you can't be serious! We can't say that their critics call them black supremacists because the vast majority of sources don't call them black supremacists? Really? Can you cite a policy or guideline that says that? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said that, and I've got no problem with "x source says x group is black supremacist" (sorry if I was unclear) - my problem is with a long discussion of NOI (or other groups) that doesn't focus on who has called them supremacist or why - ie, which assumes they're supremacist without a source, or that the label is uncontroversual when it isn't. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: 'proofs' for NoI being BlSup, I think this is the difference between term and ideology. Probably none of these groups is actually ordinarily described by RS as 'black supremacist'. nb edit conflict Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sincere apologies if I misunderstood, Fyddlestix. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm opposed to saying in Wikipedia's voice that something or someone is racist or antisemitic or black supremacist. Opinions should be attributed in text, as I've tried to do in editing this article today. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: The first paragraph of their article says that the Nation of Islam's critics have described the group as black supremacist and antisemitic, and that the SPLC regards it as a hate group. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I mean, what on earth can be done with this article?? I'm at a loss...what about the whole lead (even now after being pared down)? it's pure OR..and it's hard for me to even look at that final section it's so goofy..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem tags

I've put a 'lead rewrite' tag as the lead is meant to be a summary of information presented in the article. This isn't currently the case as although lead and 'body' seem to contain related info, in no sense is the lead a summary of info presented more fully in the article.Pincrete (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

strongly concur..this is a very problematic article in general...it may even require a RfD...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Internationalise?

I didn't want to hang any more 'problem' tags as the article already looks like a 'washing line', but while major surgery is in prospect, I would point out that at present the article deals solely with US. I'm sure there must be European and (South?) African dimensions as well. Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

From the sources I've seen so far (mostly SPLC), this appears to be a US-based phenomenon. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No I don't have sources either, just a vague memory of hearing the term used. I mainly put this here as a reminder. We may end up concluding that this is solely US. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Israelite Church

The linked article contains a cited section "Allegations of black supremacy"; it's therefore undue to include a section in this article. I will go ahead and remove it. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

what do you mean, exactly? because they're only allegations? please contribute to my above thread as far as what might be able to remain in this article for now...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because they are only allegations. "Relationship to white supremacy" is also a dubious section (it's mostly about "white supremacy", but I've not looked at it in detail yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

yeah, that section is even more of a disaster than the lead...and then we have only a list of groups that may or may not even be considered 'black supremacist' by any reliable sources...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, general comment, I can't access all the sources (some of the SPLC ones paricularly), but many of those I have followed, lead to SPLC articles which refer to some beliefs/some rhetoric/some individuals within groups being BlSup. My only concern about you removing would be to ask if it would be better to find what the orig source DOES say, rather than TNT it because of what it does not say. I'm thinking, let's see what we really have here.Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the original section:

• The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ (ICGJC), formerly known as the Israeli Church of Universal Practical Knowledge, is a Black Hebrew Israelite Christian group founded in the United States. It accepts the Old and New Testaments, and the Apocrypha, as inspired Scripture. It believes that specific people of African and African-descended West Indian ancestry are the lost 12 tribes of Israel and are the true racial and Biblical Jews. They have historically claimed racial superiority to ethnic Europeans and claim to have divine favor and inspiration. ICGJC World Headquarters is located in New York City, New York.

• The ICGJC and its various splinter groups can be loosely grouped together as sects that advocate a King-James-Version-only approach to the Bible (i.e. they endorse only the KJV as scripture, although they include the Apocrypha.) They characterize ethnic Europeans as Edomites in Biblical terminology. The Israelite Church is nontrinitarian. It believes that Jesus Christ is God's divine Son and Messiah, and Redeemer for sinful Israelites. The ICGJC has strong apocalyptic views of the end of the world.

References

www.religioustolerance.org and www.thecomforter.info are non RS; and SPLC describes the group as a "black supremacist sect" here. Overall, it looks like this article has an over-reliance on SPLC sources to describe groups as "black supremacist". SPLC describes them as "cults" and "sects", which appears to be more accurate, vs the representation in this article, which leaves an impression that it's a mainstream phenomenon. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I only get the 'Intell report' front page rather than the individual article, 'Wayback' doesn't help either. My general observation is that current wording doesn't focus much on the connection with BlSup, if any! Like much of the article, we are left to surmise any connection to the subject!Pincrete (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The links are old and the articles may have been renamed, sometimes I have to google for them. I believe this is the one that may be being used, as the year matches: Intelligence report: Group becoming more militant. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It has a different title, but otherwise 'fits the bill'. Pincrete (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've partially restored, trying to emphasise the link to BlSup, rather than theology, but would welcome contructive edits/further pruning if nec. Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Quibbles

K.e.coffman, a few quibbles in what is mainly an excellent job. I wonder whether referring to SPLC in the lead implies that they are the only ones to use the term, or that they coined the term? ... Has been applied to etc. without mentioning them there?

I also think the pruning of ICGJC, is good, but what we don't have is what about their beliefs is 'supremacist' (that they are the descendants of lost tribe of Israel). If no one objects, I'll try to make these changes ASAP. Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the lead suggests SPLC invented or owns the term but just that they are the ones who have notably used it..so probably okay imo....I'm still most concerned about the final section...see bottom talk thread..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

They haven't 'notably used the term', it's simply that these are the only sources we have/are using at present! I'm all in favour of naming them in the 'groups' section. Pincrete (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I just meant they appear to be the most notable group to have particularly used the term...i'm sure there are other superficial uses of the term by totally non-notable people/groups..but these uses wouldn't be worthy of mentioning in the article...keep in mind too, Wikipedia is not suppose to be a dictionary so focusing on the term is a bit odd in itself...but this article is forced to be odd in that it appears forced to exist at this point..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

final section

this entire section doesn't seem encyclopedic..and it has almost nothing related directly to "black supremacism" exactly...it reads like a very short undergraduate essay on general historical race matters..OR/SYNTH etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If you read that final section too it's impossible to not read the POV...it was clearly originally penned by someone who wanted to assert that white supremacy is bad (well, true) but that black supremacy is less bad because it's only a reaction to white supremacy....pure POV...and there's no citation that suggests black supremacy is a reaction to white supremacy (my POV would be that both ideas are simply crazy)...the whole paragraph needs to be struck imo...good work on the rest of the article though!! What's there now is at least in line with Wikipedia article policy (though, of course, don't think qualifies for an article)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Final section still a big problem..it's called "white supremacy" but it's really a brief discussion of general institutionalized/government sanctioned racism and oppression, which isn't what "white supremacy" is...."white supremacy" is a different thing, referring to fringe groups like the kkk up through skinheads and such...so it's really an off-topic discussion which is defining things in a muddled way...so it's still a lot of OR (and bad OR)..it also suggests 'black supremacy' is a reaction to this institutionalized racism, which isn't true probably and there's no cite (the civil right movement etc was the reaction to that)...black supremacy seems to primarily derive from mentally ill cult leaders....68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I agree with you. Would anyone be willing to revert the page back to a better version?142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It was never better; it was just more previously...they tried to cut out the worst of it but what remains is still inherently problematic..68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not happy

with the use of the word " religious " in the lede. While I have not yet discovered a group of atheist black supremacists, I'll bet there is one out there. Does this bother anyone else or can the word "religious" be removed? Carptrash (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep my distance from this article a bit to be honest... but no, given the current for of the article the word religious seems appropriate per WP:LEAD. We must neutrally summarize the article and currently sources only point to religious groups espousing this ideology. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, which is why I did not just hack it out, but i still am not happy with it. Might have to start my own group. Carptrash (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

the problem, of course, is the "topic" simply isn't notable enough to be a Wikipedia article...some of the groups mentioned in the article should likely have an article, but that's a different matter. At least what is there now is in line with Wikipedia article policy as far as actual content and not an embarrassing mess as it was previously..so it's not doing Wikipedia any harm in that sense any longer...but what we have is an article about the SPLC using the term "black supremacy" to describe a few groups (again, not exactly article worthy)...but that's all it seems it can be...there should likely be another AfD down the line but I doubt anyone will care to bother (and you might again get the odd result of people voting to keep the article anyway)...but, again, at least the article isn't damaging to Wikipedia's reputation at this point..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, with regrets, with the IP above. The question is about the comparatively few lack of sources for an article by this title. Are there any alternative titles which could cover the same, basic, territory, which might be more widely discussed and maybe more notable which would also have clearer lines of demarcation of what is and is not directly relevant to it? John Carter (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps another title or maybe the problem is that there just are not very many, if any, people who believe in black supremacy. Maybe it, like White supremacy is mostly the product of white folks thinking? Carptrash (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same re naming. The article seems to describe (based on sources) "Black supremacist religious beliefs " rather than "black supremacy" (emphasis added). Another option "Groups described by SPLC as having black supremacist religious beliefs" as more precise, but extremely long. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(e-c) I tend to think that there are very few people who believe in any form of racial supremacy at this point, white, black, Asian, whatever. The Encylopedia of Racism in the United States here with the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism second edition here, the Encyclopedia of White Power here and the Encyclopedia of Multicultural Psychology here might be indicators as to what if any roughly similar articles might be more notable. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Whilst our current article deals solely with religious groups, the term is not INHERENTLY religion-associated and taking a less US-centric approach, I wonder whether religion is a factor at all?Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Overall, I'm happy with the current article. It could be expanded / reworked from there based on RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Supremacy section

I'm moving this section here, as it has only a tenuous connection to the topic of the article as currently presented. Open to suggestions as to how this material may be reused in the future.

• According to sociologist Patricia Hill Collins, white supremacy (the belief that a racial hierarchy exists, with whites at the top and non-whites at the bottom) and its various permutations derive from a specific history of scientific racism in the late 18th and 19th centuries that provided the rational foundations for, and the moral principles guiding: the Atlantic Slave Trade; Jim Crow laws in the United States; New Imperialism and the colonization of Africa and parts of Asia and Oceania; Apartheid in South Africa; eugenics; and a number of social and political structures implemented by white-led governments and collectives.

• For many centuries, the tenets of white supremacy were reflected in "common-sense" ideas about differences between people of European descent compared to those of Asian and African ethnicities. Sociologist Joe Feagin explains that the "rationalization of racial oppression by racist ideology" is the means through which systemic racism (which white people are not commonly victims of) is internalized and unintentionally reproduced by many individuals. This cultural "naturalization" of white supremacist ideology and its prevalence as scientific "fact" for nearly two centuries makes it a significantly different phenomenon from black supremacy. The latter emerged chiefly in the 20th century as a reaction against the oppression of white supremacy, systemic racism, and Eurocentrism in societies dominated for the period of slavery in the Americas and colonization by Europeans.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That still has nothing to do with this article.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)