Talk:Frances Cress Welsing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Teannw1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Isispapers.jpg

Image:Isispapers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

See Also

I added a See also section with links to Melanin theory, Psychiatry, Scientific racism and Pseudoscience since I felt that those articles are all related to her and her work. She is a psychiatrist by profession, who espouses Melanin theory, widely recognized pseudoscience, and Melanin theory is a form of scientific racism. Anyone who disagrees with the racist bit, just read the quote in the article. Pstanton 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Your feelings should not be relevant to linking her to subjects of pseudoscience. She unlike yourself was in fact a psychistraist, and 'widely recognized pseudoscience' only means that the white establishment was offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.21.28 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Pstanton put that badly, 12 years ago. Those artcles are related; feelings actually do not come into it. Melanin theory is pseudoscientific bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Black supremacist

I take the point that we need sources. So far the only source I can find in Google books is F7Te2ABNSIhQfagojnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Frances%20Cress%20Welsing%20%22black%20supremacist%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevance?

Is the subject of the article noteworthy enough for the article to exist? Other than racist theories, what is really noteworthy about Frances Welsing? Wikipedia doesn't donate space to articles concerning every skinhead on Stormfront who can put two words together on a crackpot theory of racial supremacy, so why does this article exist? The claims made here should be summarized, properly attributed to her, cited, and rolled into the appropriate article, whether that be scientific racism, Black supremacy, or something else. 69.165.134.3 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right. WP:PROF doesn't seem to be met, for example. Of course, not every skinhead has written a book... Would be interested to read comments, or you could tag the article for notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is noteworthy enough to exist. Though it may be hard to believe, Cress Welsing holds a respected position throughout the national African American community and college campuses across the U.S. She is revered as an "expert" on Racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EyePhoenix (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is notable and doesnt require any tags, Cress Welsing is a respected person to many African-Americans. Clearly wikipedia has selected content which poorly reflects her. But did anyone bother to read her writings beyond here? Ann Coulter seems to be notable because - she is white - despite being utter rubbish.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply saying someone is notable doesn't make it any more true than saying glass is delicious and expecting the Sahara desert to feed billions. There's nothing about her writings that sets it apart from typical racist rhetoric. I read her writings once, you can only stretch the term "white supremacy" so far; I suppose if one already held bigoted feelings toward people with white skin (and that is what she is doing, because her writings make no real distinctions between different groups of people who have the same skin color) then her writings would much easier to digest for someone who already agrees with the core ideas. No one has made any comments about Miss Coulter before you brought her up, she is an commentator at a large news network and a prolific author with a conservative ideology. Ann Coulter is not however, a member of the any body that endorses racially discriminatory ideologies or a peddler of supremacist drivel- The same cannot be said for Dr. Welsing. Saying that she is an expert on the topic of racism is akin to saying that Adolf Hitler is an expert on the topic of Antisemitism. Treeash (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I find her listed in Smith, Jessie Carney, ed. (1996). Notable Black American Women. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale ReasearchInc. pp. 700–701. so I think her notability is, well, unquestionable. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Welsing—who was a trained and practicing psychiatrist—was one of perhaps the first African Americans to study and observe racism through a psychological lens. No where in her work does she promote hating or harming anyone based on skin color. Rather, she sets out to analyze why racism might exist, why white people specifically seem to historically be the biggest practicioners of racism, and how such behavior shaped the symbols and behaviors associated with the American culture. Leneschy (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Dr. Welsing—who was a trained and practicing psychiatrist—was one of perhaps the first African Americans to study and observe racism through a psychological lens. No where in her work does she promote hating or harming anyone based on skin color."

Your claims are a complete blackwash. Frances Cress Welsing's entire life revolved around promoting the genocide of the White race. Her book says so, again and again. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:6958:87AE:D7E1:5D97 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem with description

Do any editors (aside from IP vandals) have a problem with the (entirely appropriate) term "anti-white racist" being used for this subject? If so, we may as well hash it out now. Quis separabit? 06:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's not bother. This is still a BLP as she died only recently and is controversial, and it's unsourced. Adding it is a violation of policy. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Disagreement noted by Doug Weller here (and myself below). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

How does studying a culture's behavior and attempting to theorize the origins and effects of that behavior make someone anti-white or racist? Leneschy (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Characterisation

The article does not describe Welsing as a "black supremacist"; the term "black supremacy" or "black supremacist" appears only in the Category area. Please comment on the recent revert of my edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: per WP:BRD, please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: -- per Black supremacy article on Wikipedia (lede): "Black supremacy or black supremacism is a belief that black people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds ...", which certainly, IMO, applies to Welsing

I don't have a problem with the category applying to Welsing but others may see it as synthetic. As I mentioned, we should open a discussion about it here on her talk page and hear what other editors think. I'll abide by any consensus. Quis separabit? 23:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"Black supremacy applies to Wesling would require RS to support it, no? The "Black supremacy" article itself is problematic, please see recently closed AfD and discussions on Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As no sources have been provided to support the inclusion of the category, I will go ahead and remove it. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In a similar fashion, I removed "Category:Anti-white racism in the United States", as this term does not appear elsewhere in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the category again. If restoring, please provide RS that describe the subject in this way. Otherwise, it looks like a tagged on category and synthesis.

Pls also see above: Talk:Frances_Cress_Welsing#Problem_with_description. Regards, K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page 3 of "within the veil" (https://books.google.com/books?id=PqBrinKtzWAC&q=black+supremacist+welsing&pg=PA3#v=snippet&q=black%20supremacist%20welsing&f=false) : "But neither Jeffries nor welsing have found a neutral forum for their black supremacist ideas in the mainstream mdeia, even though their theories are no less credible than the one offered by Herrstein and Murray." - not to mention meeting the textbook definition as a result of being a proponent of Melanin Theory, which is long established as a Black Supremacist theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.16.195 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Where in Dr. Welsing's work does she promote the idea that black people are better than everyone else? Doesn't her work only deal with an interpretation of reality, one where, I think we all can agree, white people have perpetrated uncountable horrors against other people on the basis of race? Shouldn't that be studied so the behavior can be eradicated? Leneschy (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Original research

I removed large chunks of WP:OR citing to Wesling. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You removed rather large swathes of sourced statements and quotes, which I object to. Moreover, when I find terms like "the white man" and "the black man", I object even more. WP:OR and WP:COATRACK are very useful, but not applicable to the edits in this article. Kleuske (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Lest I forget... "Melanin, afrocentricity, and pseudoscience" (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 36, Issue Supplement 17, pages 33–58, 1993) is worth reading. The work of Cress Welsing is discussed in great detail. Kleuske (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Forgotten Science: Strange Ideas from the Scrapheap of History", where Cress Welsings work is also discussed. Kleuske (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Magic Melanin: Spreading Scientific Illiteracy Among Minorities", describes the "melanin scholars" (and Cress Welsing is prominent amingst them) as racist. Kleuske (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, Author of the Isis Papers, Dead At 80", "Her research, while controversial, focused on White racism while offering the theory of Black superiority based on heightened levels of melanin." Kleuske (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Melanin theory

Sorry, but removing this, which had an independents source, was a terrible idea. See [1], [2], [3] Doug Weller talk 18:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I support the addition of 3rd party sourced material. A lot of content I removed was citing to Welsing herself, and was OR as I understand it (diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.", The publications of Cress Welsing are reliable sources on the views of Cress Welsing. Moreover, the passages cited are cited in other publications as well, so WP:OR is not applicable. There is some concern, since they are primary sources, but still,that does not add up to WP:OR. Kleuske (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, your sanitized version states

According to Welsing, people of African descent are disadvantaged in the nine major areas of people's activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war.

instead of

Welsing posited that a system is practiced by the global white minority, on both conscious and unconscious levels, to ensure their genetic survival by any means necessary.

That does not represent her published opinion, which is more accurately described by the earlier version. You also removed all sources critical of Cress Welsing. This does seem to violate WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:: <deafening silence> Kleuske (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The version of the Melanin theory article that editor Kleuske restored the text to was problematic, and it was justly (I believe) reverted. Hence my edit to this page as well. When discussing this controversial topic, especially as it applies to a biography of a supposed "melanin theorist" (is this even a thing?), secondary sources would be preferred, rather than citing the subject of the article. Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Do you have any intentions of actually addressing some of my objections? You removed any critical secondary sources. Kleuske (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of citations to Wesling: diff; could you clarify which secondary sources should be reinstated? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

All. Could you please clarify why they should be removed? Again, you are avoiding answering my objections above. Kleuske (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe WP:Fringe applies: wikipedia takes note of fringe views when they are covered in reliable third party sources independent of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And again,you fail to address the concern above. You removed reliable third party sources. Also, please reread WP:FRINGE, you seem to have misread the article. Kleuske (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"I see a lot of citations to Wesling: diff; could you clarify which secondary sources should be reinstated?" K.e.coffman (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparantly we are moving in circles...

ALL secondary sources need to be reinstated, and please clarify why you removed them in the first place. And for the third time of asking please answer the objection above. Kleuske (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Crickets chirping... Kleuske (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is still not clear to me which sources you'd like reintstated. I removed self-citations to subject's writings -- I don't see a need to include them while secondary sources, which are independent of the subject, are available.

Separately, the attempts to add an unsourced category of "anti-white racism" (is this even a thing?) were also concerning to me. The addition of this category was done after I voiced my concern and also pointed out that another editor had previously looked at this addition and concluded that it was "against policy". That is why the push to reinstate prior content does not appear to come from a neutral point of view. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Forget the citations. Just address the objection above (The one with the two quotes) and quit stalling. Kleuske (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

|Crickets chirping... Kleuske (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Which quotes? Please be specific. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:K.e.coffman The quotes above, in this thread. Quit stalling. WP:NOTHERE or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?

According to Welsing, people of African descent are disadvantaged in the nine major areas of people's activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war.

instead of

Welsing posited that a system is practiced by the global white minority, on both conscious and unconscious levels, to ensure their genetic survival by any means necessary.

That does not represent her published opinion, which is more accurately described by the earlier version. You also removed all sources critical of Cress Welsing. This does seem to violate WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, finally we are getting somewhere! The version of May 16 (before I edited the article) included both of these statements:

• Welsing stated that a system is practiced by the global white minority, on both conscious and unconscious levels, to ensure their genetic survival by any means necessary. According to Welsing, this system attacks people of color, particularly people of African descent, in the nine major areas of people's activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war.

References

I was not sure if www.encyclopedia.com used for the first citation was a reliable source or an online mirror site, so I removed it. If it's deemed reliable then I would not oppose restoring it. What makes it reliable in your opinion? The rest of the citations I removed were cited to Welsing's book (ISIS), which I don't believe should be used while secondary sources, independent of the subject are available. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, finally we are getting somewhere.

Let's deal with the last bit first: You doubt encyclopedia.com is a WP:RS:"Encyclopedia.com has more than 100 trusted sources, including encyclopedias, dictionaries, and thesauruses with facts, definitions, biographies, synonyms, pronunciation keys, word origins, and abbreviations. "^{encyclopedia.com} More here: "As the Internet's premier collection of online encyclopedias, Encyclopedia.com provides you reference entries from credible, published sources like Oxford University Press and Columbia Encyclopedia."

What makes you doubt that it is a reliable source? What criteria doyou have that reject encyclopedia as a WP:RS?

Then the current bit, which merely states that black people are disadvantaged. Welsing actually goes a lot further than that and claims there's a conspiracy against black men.

The reason that the Black male . . . is and always has been central to the issue of white supremacy is clarified by the definition of racism as white genetic survival. In the collective white psyche, Black males represent the greatest threat to white genetic survival because only males (of any color) can impose sexual intercourse, and Black males have the greatest genetic potential (of all non-white males) to cause white genetic annihilation. Thus, Black males must be attacked and destroyed in a power system designed to assure white genetic survival. . . . The prevention of white genetic annihilation is pursued through all means, including chemical and biological warfare. Today, the white genetic survival imperative, instead of using chemicals in gas chambers, is using chemicals in the streets-crack, cocaine, ecstasy, PCP, heroin and methadon [sic] (all 'designer chemicals').

— Melanin, Afrocentricity, and Pseudoscience (pdf)

and

If you attempt to understand the AIDS holocaust without understanding white supremacy, you will only be confused: and you may be dead. . . . This [AIDS] is not a ‘monkey’ biting Africans and causing disease, but a weapon of biological warfare developed in laboratories by people who classify themselves as white

— ibid.

Both are quotes from the Isis Papers, by a reliable third party source.

Stating that she merely thought black people were "disadvantaged" in some number of fields is not a neutral description of what she actually wrote.

Kleuske (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Those pesky crickets are chirping again. We really have a cricket problem going on, here. Where's the f*cking bug spray? Kleuske (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an online encyclopedia is a suitable source for the article. Wikipedia preferentially requires reliable secondary sources, while this is a tertiary source with unknown quality of editorial oversight. I would not support restoring citations to this source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. . I note you have no credible objections. In short: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kleuske (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It took you five <insert expletive here> days to come up with that? Kleuske (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I also note you have not addressed any of the concerns above. Kleuske (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Since K.e.coffman is consistently stalling, sidetracking and refusing to address any of the concerns raised. I will no longer wait for him and employ the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" doctrine. If K.e.coffman has serious objections, I will expect a timely and reasoned response, which steers clear of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If K.e.coffman does not respond to specific points, I will assume a WP:CONSENSUS. Kleuske (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the substantiation behind the statement that encyclopedia.com is reputable? The burden is on those who want to use the source: WP:ONUS. Such as showing that the source has been accepted by consensus or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

IOW, the WP:ONUS reference does not state what you imply here. Moreover, I've given the reasons why I consider it a reliable source above, quoting the website in question wrt sources and editorial oversight. Since we disagree and no consensus seems to be forthcoming, I'll put the question to WP:RS/N and see what others have to say.

I also note that you failed to address the concerns above. Again. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Category

This edit summary ("Restored well-deserved and accurate category -- had a white person (especially a doctor) made the kind of comments Welsing made, his or her racism would be accepted as fact (and the DOJ would move to strip his or her licenses)") is OR and/or synthesis. I removed the category. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Racist, paranormal, and pseudoscientific ideas are being introduced into the schools under the guise of multiculturalism. These ideas would clearly be excluded if they were labeled as religious, but are considered acceptable because they are “based on science.” There is a need for the anthropological community to be aware of the claims and arguments made by the melanists in order to be able to correct pseudoscientific or erroneous statements on these topics.

— Melanin, Afrocentricity, and Pseudoscience

The same publication lists Welsing, prominently, as one of the "melanists".

An active group, referred to here as the “melanists”, has been developing and publicizing the properties of melanin. There have been five annual melanin conferences held around the country. The talks presented have been widely disseminated through broadcasts on African-American radio programs. The program “African-American World View,” on Detroit’s public schools radio station WDTR, has been particularly diligent in broadcasting most of the talks presented a t the various melanin conferences, in addition to those delivered by the melanists in other forums. Some of these views have recently become available in writing. The melanists are a diverse group, with a n unusually high proportion of psychologists and psychiatrists. The following list is not inclusive: Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, a practicing psychiatrist in Washington, D.C.; Dr. Richard King, a psychiatrist teaching at San Francisco State University; Dr. Wade Nobles, a psychologist at San Francisco State University; Neferkare Stewart, a San Francisco psychologist; Dr. Leonard Jeffries, head of African-American Studies at City University of New York; Hunter Havelin Adams of the Chicago Lifeways Institute, formerly a n environmental technician a t Argonne National Laboratory; Dr. Jawanza Kunjufu, an educational consultant in Chicago and developer of a set of Afrocentric curricular materials; Anthony T. Browder, a Washington artist; Carol Barnes; Dr. Naim Akbar.

— ibid.

Besides, you cannot write books and papers on racism (such as the Cress theory of color confrontation) without firmly belonging in the category Racism in the United States, if only because she wrote extensively on the subject. Kleuske (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kleuske that she is inextricably linked to that category by virtue of her life's apparent mission (although my own personal opinion remains that she was an anti-white racist). Quis separabit? 23:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted editor Rms on the grounds that their commentary did not suggest that the category "Racism in the United States" was being added in good faith. Would like to ping Doug Weller since they previously participated in the discussion on "anti-white racism" category. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Leaving the WP:AGF-issue aside, do you agree that she belongs in that category? If not, why not? Kleuske (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting because she only recently died. I'd probably argue there that as she is controversial that BLP extends the maximum 2 years. And that as this is clearly controversial, it shouldn't be added. If she'd been dead a couple of years maybe. User:K.e.coffman, I'm involved with so many discussions I can't recall where that was, could you point me to it. Thanks. Ironic, I've just been attacked with a claim I'm a white supremacist, but it's by a sock who really really hates me. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sorry I was not clear. The discussion was above on this Talk page: Problem with description -- category being discussed was "anti-white racism". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Lol, a relief to see I've been consistent! Doug Weller talk 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, @K.e.coffman:. Consistency is commendable. However, WP:BLP does not boil down to de mortuis nihil nisi bonum, but, quite sensibly, requires sources. One is given above and here's another. Kleuske (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, @K.e.coffman:. Cricket problem. Again... Kleuske (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Kleuske's second link convinces me - that we need to make it clear that her melanin theory is pseudoscience or at least considered as such by a number of people, and perhaps add that category. As to the other one, I suggest an RfC, rather than just a handful of editors discussing it. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, since my edit someone just deleted the text from Melanin theory calling it pseudoscience. Hard to believe that's a coincidence. But it does give the sources so I'll copy it here (I reverted the IP): "Melanin theory is a pseudoscientific, racist ideology" Note there are other sources that we might want to use also or in place of one or more of these. I'd only use one of Ortiz de Montellano's articles for instance, they are good but no reason to use him twice. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I would not object to the category of pseudoscience being added. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the Racism in the United States is warranted, too, given the sources.

@Doug Weller: lest crickets start chirping, i'll get into the appropriate sources tomorrow (local time). Thanks for the revert, CluebotNG also caught two. The article seems to arouse some discontent. It may still be a coincidence, though. Hanlon's razor applies. Kleuske (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The category "pseudoscience" is for pseudoscience topics such as astrology or creationism, as the category page states ("This category comprises well-known topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth).") It is inappropriate, therefore, to add it to articles about individuals. When I removed her from the category, Welsing was the only individual whose article had the "pseudoscience" category, and it seems very strange that she should be the only person categorized that way. Some different category should be used. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Her work (see refs and quotes above) is generally considered "pseudoscientific". The application of that word has nothing to do with the number of adherents as you seem to suggest, but with the methods and reasoning employed. I've recategorized her into Category:Pseudoscientific psychologists, which is more appropriate. I have contemplated creating an additional subcategory of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience to include advocates for "melanin theory". Kleuske (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

All I've done above is to quote the description the category itself offers. If you think that it is incorrect somehow, it is up to you start a discussion to get it changed. Anyway, thank you for adding Category:Pseudoscientific psychologists as an alternative; I agree it is more appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I reacted to what you wrote and did no background checks. Sorry for the inconvenience. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

critical analysis

There really need to be a more critical analysis of this woman's work as most of it is theoretical nonsense. 64.150.207.42 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC) bc

By all means... Be bold! Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frances Cress Welsing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104181454/http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/01/dr_frances_cress_welsing_dead_at_80.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/01/dr_frances_cress_welsing_dead_at_80.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What did Frances Cress Welsing write ? (details needed)

Dear Wikipedists, I am contributing to the French version of the article on Welsing. As she is more or less unkown in Europe, so far there's been no edition war and there is a fair chance of achieving a good quality article. Yet to do that, we have to make sure we have access to all Frances Cress Welsing has written. I have read the articles you mentioned in your discussion, as well as a few more in french. So far, 2 writings have been mentioned : The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation + The Isis paper. Is that it or has she written something else (article in newspaper, magazines, peer-reviewed journal ? ). I'd really appreciate your help. I've done my homework and looked what I could find on the Swiss University libraries network (Switzerland is where I live) and I did come across (mostly American) articles about her , but none OF her, so I wonder if she only wrote these two texts I mentioned above.

As I said, here in Europe she is not well-known at all, so if you could provide me with some sourced information about the kind of audience she has /had in North America, that too would be a most welcomed aid. --Braveheidi (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Most promenently, "The Isis Papers". Kleuske (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Welsing had some strange ideas not mentioned in the article

One of our sources is "Melanin, Afrocentricity, and Pseudoscience" BERNARD R. ORTIZ DE MONTELLANO Anthropology Department and its publishers have put the paper at [4]. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because Afrocentricity is mentioned, doesn't mean that the author understands what Afrocentricity is. I have reviewed this article and that appears to be the case. He lumps Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism together and they are not the same. Africologist (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not an Afrocentrist

Dr. Francess Cress Welsing was not an Afrocentrist scholar. She was not trained under the paradigm of Afrocentricity and neither did she help to formulate the theory. People often confuse Afrocentricity with Afrocentrism. Asante, the person who coined Afrocentricity, has made this clear. He addressed Clarence Walker's (and other's) claims as unfounded, and largely because of Walker's confusion of the two terms in order to make straw-man arguments (See Molefi K. Asante's "The Afrocentric Manifesto"). Scholars who have not studied the paradigm will confuse the terms for various reasons. Anne Pollock is not familiar with Afrocentric theory, she is simply using the term that others have confusingly used to describe anyone with Black cultural politics, lumping it as "Afrocentrism". But Afrocentrism is simply an unacademic social movement with no real body of theories or direction. It has simply been lazily used to apply to those of certain aesthetics and ideology. Afrocentricity, however, is a theoretical paradigm that sees Afrocentrists approach African phenomena from the standpoint of African agency. Afrocentrists are not adherents of Afrocentrism. Further, Welsing has never used the terms Afrocentrist, Afrocentricity, or Afrocentrism in any of her writings. She has never claimed any of these terms. It is a cultural bias and a type of cultural superiority complex that has allowed these terms to be misapplied without caring to fully understand the intricacies of the theories developed by the people who created and use these terms. Also, instead of using a term that is being lazily applied to her, it is best to simply call her what she called herself: "one who studies and writes on racism/white supremacy".

Read "The Afrocentric Manifesto" as well as "The Afrocentric Idea" by Molefi K. Asante. Also read "The Afrocentric Paradigm" by Ama Mazama as well as "The Demise of the Inhuman: Afrocentricity, Modernism, and Postmodernism" by Ana Monteiro-Ferreira (along with the critiques by Stephen Howe, Walker, Tunde Adeleke, and Paul Gilroy) to get a rounded understanding of the differences between the terms Afrocentricity, Afrocentrist, Afrocentrism, and Africanity, as well as the various theories and arguments for/against. I thank you in advance for being rational, and editors committed to limiting cultural bias. Africologist (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Has there been criticism of this for example in light of the points made here? jps (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question jps. There has been criticisms of the idea that Afrocentrists, or those who use Afrocentricity as a theoretical paradigm, think they are genetically superior to other people (they do not) but not sure about this article in particular. This was written back in 1993 but has not been mentioned in any of the major texts on Afrocentricity I have listed above. All of which have been written since that time. Africologist (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So maybe this is a disambiguation issue? jps (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. You would be right to say that. Africologist (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then I think what we should start from is a creation of the Afrocentricity article which is now inappropriately a redirect. jps (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I note that an article on afrocentricity was deleted 15 years ago as a neologism: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrocentricity. That may have been the correct WP:TOOSOON argument at the time, but the sources you are showing me seem to indicate that it may be time to create the article. Should we start a draft? jps (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's do it. Africologist (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of this possibility has moved to Talk:Afrocentrism for the time being. jps (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)