Talk:Black nationalism

'black' vs 'Black'

This page appears to follow the AP Stylebook, while the Black people page appears to follow the ASA Style Guide. An effort should be made to ensure important pages within this subject follow the same style. In my opinion, the ASA style is preferred since neither 'black' nor 'white' carry the same meaning as 'Asia' does for the term 'Asian'. --Tsumugii (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tsumugii I hadn't known we were closely affiliated with the ASA. These changes must be rolled out immediately.

Kidding aside, Wikipedia MOS does touch on this. MOS:RACECAPS. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the article on white nationalism does not capitalize white in this sense. There should be a consistent standard; either capitalize both or neither. Part of the AP's reasoning for capitalizing black is straight up laughable: "AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.", while simultaneously "White people generally do not share the same history and culture...". To say black Americans would, on average, have significantly more of a shared cultural background with an African than say, a white American to a European, and that this warrants capitalizing "black" and not "white", is absurd. I don't think this is the standard Wikipedia should follow. MeanMotherJr (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Point of clarification: The term Black is often capitalised in this context not because Africans and African Americans have more in common with each other than Europeans and European Americans do, but because African Americans have more in common with other African Americans than other national or ethnic identities.

As this page says, Black Americans are often considered a singular ethnic group, even though they may have historically come from lots of different places, and are treated as such by the society they live in. Note that many Africans living in Africa do not consider themselves Black. That is the difference. They have no Black identity because they have a local ethnic identity instead (Somalian, Nigerian, Kenyan, etc). Lacking that local ethnic identity, Black people in the diaspora have a Black identity instead. This is due to the specific nature of the African Diaspora, where most Black people in America and the Caribbean do not know which African country they historically came from.

Meanwhile, most Irish Americans probably identify with Irishness before whiteness; their Irishness is more central to their identity than their whiteness. They certainly don't see themselves as having a shared culture with the English, for example. Ukrainian Americans probably see themselves as distinct from Russian Americans, and so on. Black Americans usually do have a shared culture that is specific to America, where that culture emerged, and ties them together through blackness rather than a specific African country. Ditto Black Jamaicans.

In this article, since we talk about multiple types of Black identity, I can see an argument for leaving it as is (just like there are multiple native groups, but we would use Native when referring to Native Americans specifically), but I wanted to clarify re the AP article and why capitalising Black and white isn't an equivalence. Lewisguile (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this shift happened right after George Floyd implies that the shared culture explanation is not the real motivating factor. AP themselves even apparently Identify discrimination by skin color as a motivation, and the desire to not give legitimacy to white supremacists.

https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-cultures-race-and-ethnicity-us-news-ap-top-news-7e36c00c5af0436abc09e051261fff1f Gelbom (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple things going on in your post, but to tackle the shared culture thing, the AP article specifically references this:

• The AP said white people in general have much less shared history and culture, and don’t have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color.
• "White doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does," The New York Times said on July 5 in explaining its decision.

And they do mention racial discrimination and skin colour as part of that. But they also note that they don't want to capitalise "white" because they don't want to subtly legitimise white supremacists.

No doubt George Floyd and BLM heightened awareness of the issue, and that's why the timing was important.

All of these things are relevant and contribute to decision-making, I think. The existence of multiple reasons for the AP and others to adopt this stance makes that choice more robust, I think, but also makes the discussion more nuanced and so harder to convey quickly. Lewisguile (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I can't say the same for myself.

But ~10% of black people are foreign born, (~16% of whites) so they aren't a homogenious group. Sure they may be more cohesive than those of european descent in the US, arguably. But they don't elaborate at all as to why they make that cutoff. Except perhaps for the white supremacy reference.

In any case, I don't think Wikipedia should confer validity or legitimacy onto one race group but not another. Especially on a contentious article lile black nationalism. Which as per their line of argumentation, and its association with black supremacy, would not be advisable. Gelbom (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Except Black nationalism isn't the same as Black supremacy; the article discusses that. Contrariwise, if 16% of African Americans are foreign-born, 84% (the vast majority) aren't. It isn't really about giving "validity" to one racial group over others. It's about recognising that some racial groups are treated as ethnic groups (or at least, panethnic groups/ethnoracial groups) while others aren't. As I said upthread, Irish Americans and Italian Americans aren't treated as part of the same ethnic grouping in the same way most African Americans are (despite them probably having diverse origins). Americans who are African immigrants do complicate things, but that doesn't negate the situation for the vast majority. Moreover, the RSes say that Black is generally preferred by Black people themselves and by mainstream Black organisations. There isn't the same request re: White outside of fringe groups like white supremacists. The CBC article explains it reasonably well.

However, I think we're getting sidetracked: WP policy allows for both to be capitalised, neither to be capitalised, or one to be capitalised but not the other. This article has capital-B "Black" and lower-case "white", which is not in itself forbidden and is an established convention on this page. As MOS couldn't find consensus for one convention over the others, we're probably unlikely to get a definite guideline anytime soon. Lewisguile (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It was 10% for black people and 16% for whites btw. To your positions credit.

Except Black nationalism isn't the same as Black supremacy; the article discusses that.

I never said it was. I said that it was associated with it, atleast in my experience, as is with other groups. A self proclaimed racial nationalist is going to be much more likely to be a supremacist than one that isnt.

Yeah it seems like black people identify more with their race than white people do. In part probably due to a minority effect, historic oppression and for the case of whites, modern views of white identity being an oppressive force. I wonder really how many wanted it capitalized tho.

It is a bit of a rambling article, but pretty thorough. The white reffering to white skin of Europeans (in general) argument applies equally to black people. So that is a bad argument. Otherwise sure, I get the points, to an extent.

It isn't really about giving "validity" to one racial group over others.

The AP article directly mentions not wanting to give legitimacy to white supremacists. Also arguing that one group has more of a shared identity and the other doesn't further still seems to argue along those lines. One is more or less cohesive and the other isn't.

It's about recognising that some racial groups are treated as ethnic groups (or at least, panethnic groups/ethnoracial groups) while others aren't.

Both black and white are basically panethnic groups. A Nigerian american would be classified as black in the US. Despite having little in common with a black american whose ancestors arrived in the US hundreds of years ago. Both white and black are equally used.

As I said upthread, Irish Americans and Italian Americans aren't treated as part of the same ethnic grouping in the same way most African Americans are (despite them probably having diverse origins).

Disagree, but whatever.

Suppose wenare at an impass.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me anyways. Gelbom (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. And ditto! Lewisguile (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Black versus white nationalism

Thread retitled from "Rose tinted glasses for black nationalism".

White nationalisms page inserts presuppositions about theoretical individuals' motivations, desires, and ideologies. Black nationalisms page, instead of making the same presuppositions, is described in the most charitable way and any controversial dimensions of the ideology are instead separated from the page altogether and lumped into entirely different concepts like black supremacy.

This seems to be an instance of apologist astroturfing that is rather comical when you look at the two articles side by side. They are the exact same concepts, the only difference being race. If wikipedia is to be taken as a reliable source of information and not a pop-culture infused pseudo-atlas of politically motivated disparities that set entirely different definitions based solely on the race of the individual who holds the concept in belief, there should be some degree of consistency.

White nationalism is almost immediately connected to entirely separate theories like an ethno state, while black nationalism, conversely, precludes any such attributions by informing the reader that any controversial or dangerous branching ideologies are separate and therefore not part of nationalism.

The concepts are the same, it doesn't matter what race the individual who holds the belief is. Unless wikipedia isnt actually providing consistent scientifically backed definitions, and instead is drawing on pop-culture perceptions and politically-motivated interpretations and opinion. 76.171.171.176 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw in a Wikipedia reply, maybe to my own question or maybe to someone else's, that a News site source should be used rather than the source of the original Bill for a certain Law or something like that. To me, that does not make much sense, especially as the person that wrote that reply suggested CNN/The Guardian, or another one of those quite culturally-left NEWS agencies. The types of NEWS sites that will write related articles in a heavily biased view that skews the fact of the matter. It then used the opinion of the article rather than the text of the bill.

To me, it seems observable of a considerate bias in Wikipedia reporting.

This can also be seen in WN/BN pages, the Bias.

---

I am pretty sure the bill in question came from Colorado and was a number like "103b", and was about increasing punishments for child sex offenders, and the bill was shot down for being supposedly "targeted towards transsexuals", which was quoted in the article and then used by Wikipedia. Having read the bill myself, it did not appear that way at all, and the bill appeared to be purely about punishing CSA harder. 110.22.251.226 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The scientifically backed definitions asked for show that the concepts are not, in fact, the same. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Opinion Articles are not reliable sources for definitions.

2. Using only the SPLC definition while ignoring how this issue is defined and addressed other organizations, such as the ADL, is so obviously counterproductive it is baffling and embarrassing that their word is being treated as gospel here. It doesn't even explain what fundamentally makes W and B nationalism so different in ideology and insteads skirts around it with "They don't have people in high levels of government (they have) or the WH." Somehow saying calling BN BS is a bad thing is also the same as directing less attention away from WN/WS because the FBI investigates these organizations? How are these things connected or relevant to the topic? The SCLP sources do not explain any further and I believe the bare minimum here would to find a source that actually attempts to go further in depth than this, which these current sources hardly do at all.

This is all just the SCLP. In other areas, you see some 'questionable' sources, to put it mildly, including one that is literally "The SCLP is everything Wrong with Liberalism." Again, another opinion piece barely connected to the subject.

If you have an actual defense of how this section of the Article currently is, give it. If you can't muster anything more than "Uh you're just a debate bro so no" then please don't chime in. BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The article has over 200 references. So far, you haven't given any RS (or any sources at all?) to contradict what's written. Can you please provide your sources so we can take a look at them? A simple contrast with white nationalism isn't sufficient according to WP policy on uniformity. Lewisguile (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Appeal in Introduction

Why is the Southern Poverty Law Center being cited to restrict the definition of white nationalism, a group whose ideology they are opposed to, in an article that goes to great lengths in detailing the diversity within black nationalism? Again, the article is “Black Nationalism,” why are we giving a preferential spot in the opening exposition and summary, of a critical review of white nationalism in the first place? It speaks of anti-intellectualism and politicization on a platform which prides itself on being unbiased and intellectually honest. The article needs to be edited appropriately. Recommend removing SPLC’s “definition” altogether and simply linking the article to white nationalism, which can include their definition, under the “criticism” heading. J.P.Dill (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "to restrict the definition of white nationalism"?

Anyway, the comment is there in the lede because critics of black nationalism say "it is these things, and it is like this", while other groups have said "but it's not like that because..." I read it back to double check for tone and NPOV, and I do think it's okay. Both are very short references for the lede and are expanded upon elsewhere in the article.

As this talk page shows, however, people have asked how black nationalism is different to white nationalism. It seems relevant to include some distinctions even in the lede because of that.

Removing the SPLC section altogether seems unbalanced if we're to keep the various criticisms of black nationalism in. It's relevant to note when someone (or an organisation) mentioned as critiquing something later changes their mind, or you're giving undue weight to the critique alone.

If you have a suggestion for wording the opening differently (and even the SPLC section), I'd be happy to hear it. I'm sure we can find a consensus. Lewisguile (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Well first of all, the only black nationalists that I have ever heard of, do actually champion separatism. They want a section of the US partitioned and fully segregated so it can be exclusively for blacks. The statement I mentioned above is intended to build contrast with white nationalism by denying their similarities, that both favor segregation, including their own schools, societies and territory. J.P.Dill (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Without sources, that sounds like WP:OR. As the article discusses, Black separatism is separate from Black nationalism, but they can co-occur (as in Black separatist nationalism). That's covered under the Concepts section, where it's also made clear that Black separatist nationalism is less popular than Black cultural nationalism. Lewisguile (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As an update, I have removed the SPLC quote in the lede and replaced it with a more general statement that reflects the rest of the article. No need to focus on them solely in the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Reorganisation

As the History section was getting rather long, I have moved some of the content under region-specific subheaders. Where something affected multiple locations or was essential for the history, I've left it in place. E.g., Garvey set up chapters of the UNIA in the US and Caribbean, so that stayed put. Black power technically influenced other regions but it's currently mainly about America, so that may need moving or updating. But the Nation of Islam, which is primarily American, has been moved to the relevant regional section. This is all subjective, so I'd welcome thoughts on how to move things around, if needed. Lewisguile (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)