Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was previously brought to AFD. That deletion discussion can be found here. This article is full of WP:OR, factual inaccuracies, WP:SYNTH and mainly one source. Also, is this article a list? No one seems to know. I won't bore you so I would copy and paste what I wrote on the article's talk page - with editions. See below:

I'm surprised this article was not deleted when it was last brought to AFD. My first question is: Is this a stand-alone lists? If it is, I'm not seeing any of the guidelines being adhered to here. However, I'm more concerned about the WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, factual inaccuracies presented in this article, and the almost single source (the wonderful Southern Poverty Law Center) who have provided no sources or their research methods. Sorry, but even sources have to cite sources or tell us their research methods. Some of us do not live in the US, and just because an American organisation says so does not mean we have to abide by it on Wikipedia. That in itself calls into question the notability of this article as not receiving significant coverage to merit a stand-alone article (or list). Ignoring SPLC's expansive claims for a minute, I have gone through the other sources in this article. The article states:

"Several fringe groups have been described as either holding or promoting black supremacist beliefs. A source described by historian David Mark Chalmers as being "the most extensive source on right-wing extremism" is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an American nonprofit organization that monitors all kinds of hate groups and extremists in the United States."

The editor then went on to cite David Mark Chalmers (2003). Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 188. ISBN 0-7425-2311-X [1]. However, there is nothing on that page that talks about Black supremacy/supremacist. In fact, there is nothing in that book that made any reference to "Black supremacy" or "Black supremacist". Although the page in question (p. 188) did mention the SPLC, there is nothing on that page or book that supports the bold claims made above - which is the subject of this article. There are several references in that book on White supremacy, but nothing on Black supremacy. The book made one reference to "Black separatist", and that can be found on page 181 [2]. I don't know about anybody else, but to me, "Black separatist" is totally different from "Black supremacist." I have gone through the corresponding Wiki articles but found that they are merely translations of this page and almost all of them have even fewer sources or no sources at all. Another sources cited for the above bold claim is Brett A. Barnett (2007). Untangling the web of hate: are online "hate sites" deserving of First Amendment Protection?. Cambria Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-934043-91-2. However, there is nothing on that page, not even on that book that used the term "Black supremacy" or "Black supremacist." The term used is "Black separatist" just like the first source above.[3] Again, several references to White supremacy but nothing on Black supremacy/supremacist. Other than the above two references used in this article, all the other refs came from the SPLC website, with the other ref from the Associated Press (MSNBC) - a copy of which I found on NBC [4]. Only the multiple SPLC refs and the NBC article mentioned anything about Black supremacy. I am surprised how experience editors have overlooked these issues and allowed this OR and non-notable article to stand for couple of years.

Furthermore, there is no citation from reliable sources for the definition used in this article. The lead credited the SPLC but provided no citation. Although we do not usually bother with inline citations in article leads, this article is controversial and the definition very new - provided by no other than the single source (SPLC) who invented it (if they even invented it), and not evident in any of the reliable scholarly sources cited. That is just one of the multiple issues I have with this article. This article should be deleted for the nonsense it is. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments first of all, as one of the editors who supported WP:TNT at the last nomination - but who has subsequently been involved in a massive clean-up, I'm not going to vote for now. BUT, nothing about the present wording implies that seperatism and supremacism are synonymous, or indeed connected, so there is no WP:OR there. The reason that the def is not cited is that almost no one has defined what black supremacism IS, and even fewer written about it in any detail. Chalmers is used to characterise SPLC, not the SPLC's claims, so that again is not WP:OR - it may be superfluous, but it isn't WP:OR. SPLC have characterised some of these groups as 'supremacist', or sometimes so, and they are one of the few reliable sources to have written ANYTHING about the topic at all. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some cleanup, but I see enough sourcing in the article and on Google Scholar to support an article. Some of it refers to the "myth" of black supremacy, but that can be discussed in an article of this title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to share these sources with us? Links please! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Lynchings were represented as a necessary measure to prevent Black supremacy over white people

[6] His critics accused [Malcolm X] of preaching racism, black supremacy and violence …

[7] in South Africa it was to a fear of black supremacy that the architects of segregation and apartheid appealed as justification for their actions. But no evidence survives that black resisters ever proposed their own upside- down version of apartheid …

[8] whites saw the slogan [Black Power] as representing blacks' demand that white supremacy be replaced with black supremacy

Hopefully that's enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no! But thanks for the links. Let me go through each of the sources you have provided, but before I do, I think we first need to establish what is notable as far as Wiki is concerned. For an article/topic to be notable: it must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.." ; ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" ; and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...". [9] Now that is out of the way, lets go through the links you have provided in the order you have provided them:

Link 1. This article has nothing to do with "Black supremacy". It is actually about the racial disparities, and the racist and unjustified rape trials of Black American men most of whom were wrongly accused - as per the cases presented in that article. It also shows White men rape (especially rich White men) being covered up. There is practically nothing about "Black supremacy" in that article, and even what you have quoted above you took out of context. We don't accept WP:SYNTH on Wiki. Here is the full quote of what you have provided: "Later, when it became evident that these conspiracies, plots and insurrections were fabrications that never materialized, the popular justification for lynching was modified. During the period following 1872, the years of the rise of such vigilante groups as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia, a new pretext was concocted. Lynchings were represented as a necessary measure to prevent Black supremacy over white people—in other words, to reaffirm white supremacy." Due to copyright reasons I am unable to post more. However you can find that on page 185 - 186. This trivial mention which was taken out of context is not even addressing "Black supremacy" but White supremacy. Therefore, this article fails WP:GNG.
Link 2. I take many issues with this link. If we were to use this link and/or article for any Wiki article, we will be breaching several Wiki policies. First, this website is unreliable. Second, this is a lesson plan. Third, this is a biography of certain individuals and has nothing to do with "Black supremacy" hence the trivial mention which again was taken out of context (see the link for the full quote and context). Last but by not least, it is a trivial mention and therefore fails GNG.
Link 3. Your third link is a reliable source, but even that source debunked the notion of "Black supremacy" as evident on page 11-12 (some of which you have pasted above). Here is the full quote: "It was also clear that a full-blown black supremacism—do to the whites as they have done to us—was rarely, if ever, seriously advocated by credible black leaders and intellectuals in either society [i.e. the US and South Africa]. In the United States, such a turning of the tables was of course a physical impossibility—except perhaps in the Deep South during Reconstruction, when whites complained of a "black domination" that never actually occurred. But in South Africa it was to a fear of black supremacy that the architects of segregation and apartheid appealed as justification for their actions. But no evidence survives that black resisters ever proposed their own upside–down version of apartheid". Again, no "Black supremacy" here. Further, the passage is more about White supremacy "the architects of segregation and apartheid" as in the case of the USA and South Africa respectively than it is about Black supremacy. The "Black supremacy" remark was also a trivial mention which was taken out of context.
Link 4. This is an extract rather a visible full body of work that I can access. Again, you left out the a full body of text which is useful for the purposes of context. Here is the full quote: "Blacks and whites understood black power to represent very different concepts. Where blacks understood the concept to mean either fairness or black unity, whites saw the slogan as representing blacks' demand that white supremacy be replaced with black supremacy." The extract is more about the demonization of Black Americans than it is about "Black supremacy". Sounds more like White supremacy to me than Black supremacy - as evident in the last sentence.

This means that, the only relevant link you have provided is the third link despite it being taken out of context as demonstrated above and in that source. Therefore, even if we are to take it at face value and overlook everything else, the article still would not pass GNG as it has not received significant coverage from various reliable third party sources. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per power-enwiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the problems and concerns noted by the nominator are, by and large, editorial ones which can be solved through editing and the consensus process, and do not speak to the notability of the subject matter, which is different from the quality of the article. I would also note that the nominator, User:Senegambianamestudy, has, according to this has never edited the article, except to nominate it for deletion, which means they have never attempted to fix the problems they perceive with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not expect me to waste my time fixing an article which does not deserve to be here in the first place due to its lack of notability - just to name a few. This goes beyond editing. The main source here is SPLC. The scholarly sources cited do not even mention the term.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should indeed expect you to improve an article before nominating it for AfD. See WP:BEFORE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable articles that needs work can be improved. None notable OR and synth just to name a few should be deleted as per Wiki policy. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wiki policy and the difference between the two. I noticed that none of the editors voting for keep has provided any refs substantiating their claim as to the notability of this article. I'm sure the closing admin will take that into account when closing this deletion discussion. Black separatism is notable and there is an article for that. This goes beyond needing work. It is not notable. If I didn't do BEFORE, I would not have dissected the sources cited as above. I provided links and gave a rationale explanation as per policy. Please provide links substantiating your claim as to the notability of this article? That's how it works here. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but shift the article to be about the term. That's what I argued during the article cleanup here: Talk:Black_supremacy/Archive_4#The term or the belief/ideology?. I see that the article reverted to the latter, which I disagree with. Also, the "Discrimination" sidebar should be removed. I'd be okay with keeping the article on these conditions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable; but, does need copy edit work along the lines of what BMK and K.e. suggest. An article should not be deleted based on the grounds it needs work. Kierzek (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us how this is notable when none of the scholar sources cited made no reference to the term? The mainly one source (SPLC)is the only one that referred to the term. This is more than needing work. This is something else: Not notable. Black separatist is notable and there is an article for that. This is something else. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.