Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black anarchism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. No votes other than nom to delete, with consensus to keep rather than merge. -Splash 03:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Black anarchism
Neologism. Certainly there are black anarchists, but this really isn't a separate school of thought. When the term is used, and google says it rarely is, black is merely an adjective rather than part of a compound noun. The same caveats about trolls from the national anarchism nomination apply here. --Tothebarricades 19:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Black anarchism deserves a space on here. It's a self-titled label, just as "Anarcha-feminism." Just because blacks are a minority they shouldn't be represented here? Black anarchism is its own unique form of anarchism. I believe this vote for deletion is racially motivated. RJII 19:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's one of your trolls, calling me a racist no less. --Tothebarricades 19:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not calling you a racist, but it does appear to me that some kind of racial bias is going on here. RJII 21:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Black anarchism: [1] RJII 20:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- From an essay called "The Fate of Black Anarchism": "We now call ourselves Anarchists. We say we want the end of all chains and the extermination of all oppression. Yet, in the Anarchist "movement", black folk and other folks of color are still in the senzala. We are still having to disguise ourselves, call whitey "Massa" and chain ourselves to the wall. No, don't talk about racism unless is in that very abstract sense of we-are-all-equal-let's-sing-kumbayas-and-pretend-the-color-of-our-skin-does-not-matter" racism. While there might be nobody yelling "die, nigger, die!", you can hear a very clear “shut the fuck up, nigger, just shut the fuck up." .....Do not censor this movement. RJII 20:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Women are not a minority. Be careful who you label, RJII. An An 04:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously, in this context he is calling women a 'minority' in the sense that they aren't the "dominant group". People have varying definitions of "minority".
- Yeah, there's one of your trolls, calling me a racist no less. --Tothebarricades 19:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Though I must sanction RJII for calling the nominator "racist", "Black Anarchism" does seem to be a distinct idea, strongly connected to Ashanti Alston.--Pharos 21:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:Pharos. CanadianCaesar 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As in most things, the adjective "black" renders this phenomenon something different from white anarchism in history, motivation, philosophy and actors. And that makes it worthy of examination/treatment. deeceevoice 23:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ehm, but shouldn't the anarchism article then be renamed white anarchism? Of course that's silly, but I'm just wondering ... :) DirkvdM 10:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, because the color of the skin of the proponents of most other kinds of anarchism isn't an element of their philosophy --they just happen to be white. Blacks have been oppressed because of the color of their skin, so naturally that's going to be an issue --fighting white supremacy is naturally an essential element included in the opposition of all external authority. But, as far as something like "white anarchism" the closest thing to that might be national anarchism. RJII 02:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ehm, but shouldn't the anarchism article then be renamed white anarchism? Of course that's silly, but I'm just wondering ... :) DirkvdM 10:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with APOC as per User:Millerc, below . Nandesuka 11:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with [APOC]. From all evidence I can find black anarchism does not exist as a movement separate from APOC and the people involved. The website linked to from this page is almost entirely blank, nearly every section is empty, and the only evidence describing "black anarchism" also refers to is as "panther anarchism" and a movement of the "anarchist people of color" interchangably. APOC is notable, more recognizable, and from what I can tell the statements made in each and every one of the pages brought up by RJ's google both refer directly to APOC and indicate that the two philosophies are identical in methods and goals. Kev 09:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Faulty reasoning. Anarchist People of Color is just one movement within black anarchism. RJII 16:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the above article, which appears to have a narrower focus— that of a particular "movement"— should be incorporated into Black anarchism, which, it seems to me, is very likely the broader, related subject. Just saw the above comment. Concur. deeceevoice 20:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is far more exclusive than the term APOC, and it is far less refered to APOC or prominent than APOC. Many people of APOC do not refer to themselves as black anarchists, but as anarchist people of color. Black is one color, anarchist people of color denotes many colors. Kev 01:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- What a load of B.S. LOL! RJII 02:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is far more exclusive than the term APOC, and it is far less refered to APOC or prominent than APOC. Many people of APOC do not refer to themselves as black anarchists, but as anarchist people of color. Black is one color, anarchist people of color denotes many colors. Kev 01:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I realized after I clicked "submit" that "people of color" means something broader than is my common frame of reference as an African American. However, your argument still doesn't hold water. APOC is a specific movement; whereas, this article addresses anarchism as a philosophy among black people, generally, regardless of their involvement, if any, in a particular movement. deeceevoice 09:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. If the term is in use by some people (let's say more than 1000 people - you wouldn't remove an article on a village just because it's too small, right?) then it deserves an article or at least a redirect. Which of those two depends largely on how much information is in the article which is separate from the article it is to be merged with. And that seems enough (although I haven't really studied it), so ultimately I'd say keep. DirkvdM 10:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep from a google search it appears to be a real term for a small but real movement Salsb 15:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a movement notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Kaibabsquirrel 04:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Judging from its web presence, it really does seem to exist. It may be miniscule, but it seems clear that it's not just a neologism invented by the same person who created the article.--Bcrowell 15:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - okay, fair enough. But - and this was my main concern, anyway - would everyone agree that this is not a "school of thought" on par with say, anarcho-syndicalism? And that it shouldn't be listed on the template? The problem is that RJII does anything he can to defame other users, so he'll add these marginal movements to the template and then call us racists or fascists when we remove them for being not quite notable enough for template attention. --Tothebarricades 19:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I never called you a racist. I am saying that the attempt to delete this is racially motivated. It appears to me that you think that since blacks are a minority that they shouldn't be represented ..they're not notable ..which is B.S. Just because black anarchism less google hits than a philosophy proposed by a majority race means nothing. By, the way, you were the first to bring the dispute between you and me to a personal level in another article. Reap what you sow, buddy. If you want personal, I can get personal. RJII 19:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge The information is relevent, but would better be placed in articles like APOC (as Kev has already mentioned) or in articles about the various people refered to in the article. I think the fact that the Anarchist Black Cross was listed as a black anarchist group [2] shows how little some of the editors around here really care about getting factual information correct in their POV pushing. millerc 22:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's absolutely absurd. Not all black anarchism is part of APOC. RJII 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well that may be true, but that's not what I said. I said merge the relevent info into the relevent articles. The APOC is not just black anarchists as you seem to contend. millerc 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh really? Who is with the APOC that isn't black? RJII 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not affiliated with the group (I doubt you are either), so I can't say who their most active or most outspoken members are, but a cursory look at their websites show just as many latino and hispanic contributers as black ([3],[4],[5]). And from what I can tell, their membership is open to all people of color; the only exclusion is white people. All evidence I see is that the term "black anarchism" is associated with the people listed on that wikipedia page. Since they are the ones using the term, it makes more sense that the respective articles on those anarchists can contain all relevent info. I don't think any good info. should be deleted; I just think there's a better place for it. Maybe if you give some evidence for its wider usage, rather than just ranting, I would be willing to change my mind. millerc 04:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see what you're seeing. I looked at [6] ..there is a Gustavo González, but that's a reporter from a newswire who has nothing to do with APOC. I look at your [[7] and don't see anything there ..i see a Passos Salazar but that's just the name of a graphic artist. Then I look at your last [[8] and all I see is a picture of some Palestinians standing by the wall. RJII 04:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Millerc; even a cursory reading of the links he provided supports his contention that APOC is a group that not only has a significant non-black membership, but views latino, palestinian -- basically, in their own words, "non-white" -- oppressed as their natural "constituency". Nandesuka 11:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see what you're seeing. I looked at [6] ..there is a Gustavo González, but that's a reporter from a newswire who has nothing to do with APOC. I look at your [[7] and don't see anything there ..i see a Passos Salazar but that's just the name of a graphic artist. Then I look at your last [[8] and all I see is a picture of some Palestinians standing by the wall. RJII 04:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not affiliated with the group (I doubt you are either), so I can't say who their most active or most outspoken members are, but a cursory look at their websites show just as many latino and hispanic contributers as black ([3],[4],[5]). And from what I can tell, their membership is open to all people of color; the only exclusion is white people. All evidence I see is that the term "black anarchism" is associated with the people listed on that wikipedia page. Since they are the ones using the term, it makes more sense that the respective articles on those anarchists can contain all relevent info. I don't think any good info. should be deleted; I just think there's a better place for it. Maybe if you give some evidence for its wider usage, rather than just ranting, I would be willing to change my mind. millerc 04:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh really? Who is with the APOC that isn't black? RJII 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well that may be true, but that's not what I said. I said merge the relevent info into the relevent articles. The APOC is not just black anarchists as you seem to contend. millerc 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's absolutely absurd. Not all black anarchism is part of APOC. RJII 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Distinct from APOC. Should not be merged. Nihila 02:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as per User:Millerc. JamesBurns 05:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep IMHO I don't think the reason for VfD is valid Saswann 19:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, article is reasonably well written and pretty close to NPOV given it's highly contentious subject matter. I also agree with RJII in that it's a self-titled label, just as Anarcha-feminism, and Black Anarchism certainly qualifies as a separate Anarchist movement with identifiably unique goals (though I would strongly disagree with the article's author, who appears to be asserting that the goals are relatively peaceful and egalitarian). I don't think the VfD was necessary. Xaa 01:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
