Talk:New Black Panther Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

September 11th attacks

I have modified the following based on the ADL reference it links to

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and Washington, DC the party began distributing propaganda around the country that Israel had planned and financed the attacks and that 4,000 Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center were warned ahead of time by their government and called in sick the day of the attack — a 9/11 conspiracy theory popularized in Amiri Baraka's poem "Somebody Blew Up America." [5]

Specifically, the ADL link makes no claim that any propaganda was distributed, it simple talks about a meeting where Shazz made numerous claims, inferences and anti-Israel/zionist (and possibly anti-semetic) statements. Also, Shazz does not claim that 4000 Israelis were warned. He simply states that it's a rumour that needs to be investigated. It's possible that propaganda was distributed-(at the meeting or some time else) or that at a later date, Shazz or the NBPP claimed as a fact that 4000 Israelis were absent. However without any evidence, we can't include such claims... Nil Einne 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

why is there still so much hate between blacks and whites?

That's a legitimate question, but this is not really an appropriate forum for it. Treybien 17:42 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking the above as a serious question, I'm going to guess that ignorance is part of it and that stereotyping and history have something to do with it as well. --Dante Alighieri 23:32 20 May 2003 (UTC

I'm going to say that it's because there's still so much cause for resentment. By and large, those who have money and power are whites, and those who do not are people of color. Until that changes, I'm going to guess there's going to be a lot of anger to go around, whether it's sensible or not. Graft

People of color? That phrase is in and of itself a racist concept, separating the "whites" from the rest of humanity as something unique.

That's what whites do though. And I'm (mostly) white so don't start calling me racist or whatever. That's just the truth.

"That is what whites do though."? Like the whites in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)?? The NAACP uses the term in a way that says, it is "us" against them (whites). So realize once again it is not a one-sided truth as you so blindly believe.

So you call people "weaklier pigmented" or "stronger pigmented"? Tell me about your non-racist terms, please. (That's a serious request, no offensive intention.)

There will allways be assholes who hate. I don't think we'll ever be free from it. Decent people need to expose and repudiate hate where-ever we find it. It's not a white thing or black thing - it's a human thing. There are hatefull people of all races, religions, philosophies, etc. Graft, I disagree with you in that changing the power structure is not going to eliminate hate or anger. AbstractClass 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Those who have money and power in the US may be predominantly white (hardly surprising, considering they make up the majority of the US population and have a 500 year history here), but it's hardly true around the world. Many of the world's richest and most powerful people are NOT white. For example, the world's fifth-richest man is Indian, eighth-richest is middle-eastern, and tenth-richest is Chinese. About 20% of those on the Forbes list of the world's 100 wealthiest people aren't of European ethnicity. And for power, a cursory look at the leaders of the world's nations will dispel the notion that power is by and large in the hands of white people.

So you're saying that 80% of the world's richest people are drawn from the 20% of them who happen to be white, and you think that means that the richest and most powerful people aren't predominantly white? Huh?And a headcount of national leaders is an absolutely ludicrous metric. Using that, the leaders of Madagascar or East Timor are counted as being as 'powerful' as the Presidents of the United States or of Russia. Not only that, but there's a good case to be made that the owner of General Motors has far more power in the world than the leader of, say Vanuatu. Specious reasoning twice over. --Aim Here 11:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Talk Pages are not a political discussion forum. They are only there for discussing edits to the articles. Thanks. -Bluedog423^Talk 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

i try to be carefull on editing wiki pages but judging from my urge to "vandalise" this artical it certainly seems like a good thing to do than again it doesnt seem to get enough traffic to realy need it i dont know just a thought. --Ggohtrin 12:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag added, need sources

I realize this deals with race relations in the US, which remains very controversial with many people maintaining it has actually gotten worse. However this article makes a lot of bold assertions that does not follow the NPOV policy. Also perhaps more importantly there are no sources cited. Please see the how, why, and what exactly is a reliable source pages. I'm not sure where this information came from, but I will start checking to see if I can locate the sources AND responses by members of the NBPP. Thanks, --Dejitarob 03:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am new to editing and discussing Wikipedia so I apologize a head of time if I do not follow the rules exactly as I am still reading them. On that note I would like to contest the NPOV tag on this article. I notice it was added over a year ago and after reading the article in its current form there appears to be references in every or every other sentence. I believe this satisfies the requirements to have the NPOV tag removed. In addition those references do include quotes, articles and text from the target subject matter's official website. Thanks for your time. Oct. 11th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.2.116 (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Black Supremacist?"

I've just visited the official website, and I am not finding anything that sounds like "Black Supremacist" ideology.

Cyclopiano (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BS fox video

Why is this video being accepted as fact? Fox news has lied before. Not only that but the video is only on fox with absolutely noone else reporting this YVNP (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you watch the entire video? They were on the scene, provided interviews, and the police were called. I'm not sure how you can "BS" that. Ilovetoberandom (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First the obvious point: Wikipedia has no policy against using Fox News as a source, unless there's concrete reason to doubt the reports given. Second, there's video out there which clearly shows the man in NBPP attire holding the nightstick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinBlank (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You want evidence? Fine. First, the Office of the Philadelphia District Attorney says there have been no complaints about intimidation at polling places: http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7788840&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1. Second: Jacqueline Dischell, an Obama volunteer who's been monitoring the site since 0630 this morning, says there have been no incidents of intimidation. Dischell also says that one of the two guys shown in the video is legit -- an officially designated poll watcher. The guy with the nightstick, who left hours ago, is reportedly a friend of his who showed up to hang out with him. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/obama_volunteer_on_scene_dispu.php. There is no basis whatsoever for reporting this story as fact. There's a fair amount of evidence that the interpretation being retailed by Fox News is not reliable, to put it charitably. Now: how long is it going to take to change the text on the front page? ---unsigned comment

I edited the article to reflect uncertainty. Might I gently suggest that adding references that dispute the account as it appeared in the article would be more productive than railing on the talk page? JustinBlank (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the video shot by the people who complained about being intimidated. If you don't "trust" Fox, then watch this and make up your own mind. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU --Davidwiz (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That video only proves the unsigned guys point —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How's that? He was ranting that the whole thing was based on footage shot by Fox News, and hence, not newsworthy. His "evidence" that this didn't happen was an Obama volunteer who was quoted on TPM - hardly what I would call an unimpeachable source. The original (non-Fox) video clearly shows that two people, dressed in black military fatigues, one with a nightstick, where outside a polling place and challenging people's right to be outside the polling place. You and Michael Nutter can try to spin it all you want, but it did happen.--Davidwiz (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's two points that are at issue. One is whether an unauthorized person was there, and holding a night-stick. That's made unambiguous by the video and the context--it happened. The second issue is whether they were actively threatening or blocking voters & whether voters complained (and to whom). That's what seems to be under dispute. If you want to call having the night-stick intimidation on it's own, the article might be capable of being edited to make it clear that's what is being said. We just need to make the article clearly reflect whatever the final story is.JustinBlank (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The US Dept. of Justice filed a civil suit against the New Black Panther Party relating to the incident captured on the video - so some neutral third party thinks that something happened.--Davidwiz (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bush DOJ a neutral third party? The whole section about the Philidelphia incident is poorly written. If one were to clean up all the bogus/dead references, you'd have to remove half the sentences as unsourced. 75.88.108.126 (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Paul

The suit was later dropped. I think the whole incident is given too much weight since it was only the actions of two people. There is not even any reason to think the leadership of the group told them to do it.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this article too one sided and sensationalist?

Why is there no mention that the New Black Panthers provided food and clothing drives and other social outreach programs to the community? That's what they spend most of their time and effort doing.

Because the Klan performs similar charitable actions, and the moderators of this site have decided to exclude that information to prevent inciting sympathy for the KKK. Later, the same decision was reached concering the NBPP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.37.182 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama Endorsement?

Should that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.236.227 (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If it can be referenced, then I say yes. I know they endorsed him, but mysteriously kept quiet and even denied later. --Hourick (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be added. Angie Y. (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the NBPP endorsed Obama. Wouldn't he represent everything they hate and his beloved mother was White and he was raised by White grandparents? He seems hardly a good role model for extreme Black militants. Plus I could see why Fox news and the Tea Party would want to claim that the NBPP and the NOI support Obama. The thing is that Obama wouldn't touch these groups with a bargepole. Irisismykid (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Far Left?

The NBPP is in no way a left wing organisation. The party can be called a fascist party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.67.144 (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the way you perceive it, black supremacy group such as the “NBPP” tend consider itself a Marxist or Maoist as the original “Black Panther” ideology with blend of racism and socialist revolution. The far left can be as racist as the far right and ethnic nationalism can be define from political left to right (e.g. Slobodan Milosevic Socialist Party of Serbia which stem from the left). The left and right politics has more to do economic status of a group, how the group views itself in pertaining to orthodox or heterodox tradition. Oh “BTW”, the origin of Fascist tenet has nothing to do with racism until the rise of the Third Reich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 12:22, June 16, 2009

Please provide a reliable source that describes the NBPP as far left. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look no further. Wikipedia has it qoute;"they say that Marx based his ideology and teachings on indigenous African cultures, and that the NBPP therefore need not look to Marxism or Maoism as a basis for their program, but can look to ideologies that stem directly from those African origins".If you're Malik Shabazz then I don't need to look any further. You know your organization have not relinquish marxist ideology and you intend to base your own definition of marxism blend with african nationalism. I hope you don’t contradict yourself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 12:22, June 17, 2009

1) A quick look at my User page would show that I'm not Malik Zulu Shabazz, the lawyer associated with the "New Black Panther Party".

2) A Wikipedia article is never a reliable source.

3) That sentence is unsourced as well. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see one NBPP leaflet that mentions marxism or maoism. How can it be far left to want to exterminate a race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Redcurrant (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Far Left can be as racist as the far right. (e.g. zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front a political party in Zimbabwe run by Mugabe is a racist left wing political party)

Until somebody can find a reliable source that describes the NBPP as "far left", the description should stay out of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Far left and far right are terms that are far too general to be directly linked with overt racism. There are agenda within a wide range of both progressive and conservative politics that can be considered in one way or another to be racist. Of course, there is considerable consideration when considering the "New" whoevertheyares. However, before linking them with a generalized political group, there should be clear, well cited parallels drawn by a reliable source. Please remember that gwopy loves you and wants you to be happy. 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

A reliable source that describes NBPP as "far left": The NBPP website. From their "Ten Point Platform": "We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! ...We want tax exemption and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We want... free health-care (preventive and maintenance)." While this doesn't feature the word "Marxist," it is a demand for such. The NBPP is "far left." 72.77.97.156 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Describing the party as "far left" based on your interpretation of that is considered original research and is not permitted. One could look at the party's views towards women and gays and conclude they are "far right", but that is equally inappropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The New Black Panthers

"In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.

Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature." - blackpanther.org

This is the truth about the "New Black Panthers" straight from the source. People can admire groups of the past, but they should really do their research and get permission before they go about using names and making claims without clarification.

I've added the link to the full statement in the links section. I think it's very relevant that the original Panthers don't claim the "New" ones. Makes you wonder why the "New" Panthers even bother with the farce. PennyGWoods 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a farce. There is no evidence that any of the members don't believe they are the true successors of the party. There is also no evidence to dispute the fact that the founder of the NBPP personally was inspited by the BPP (or the BP militia) and felt he was founding a party in their legacy. The fact that many BPP members don't agree doesn't change any of this. It's not uncommon to have a party which supporters feel they founded in the legacy of another party even though many members of the original/real party don't agree. More generally, it's not uncommon that people who feel they are doing something in the name or in the legacy of something even tho many people other people who are living in that name or legacy don't agree. For example, there are many groups who identify as Christians and believers of Jesus Christ, some of which most Christians don't feel are Christians and who's believes and acts are seen as contrary the the spirit of Jesus Christ. Just as similarly there are some people who commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam even though most Muslims feel that such acts are forbidden by Islam. People have different opions and different ideas. We may not agree with many of them and some of them may be shocking and unacceptable to many of us. It doesn't mean they don't have them or are just pretending. Of course, the fact that the NBPP is using the BPP name doesn't mean we should look down on the BPP because of that either. Nil Einne 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that the Son of Sam killer didn't believe that "he was commanded to kill by a demon who possessed his neighbor's dog". I could claim that I am inspired my "Common Sense" and then rob a Wal-Mart. I could be personally inspired by Harry Potter to destroy the spirit of Voldemort which exists in the lady that works at my local coffee shop. It doesn't legitimize my actions. It means that I'm a lunatic. The words "illegitimate", "hate-group" and "bastardized". among others, need to feature prominently in this article. This group has no legitimate connection to the Black Panther Party. The invocation of that name is a desperate attempt to leach on the public goodwill and powerfully positive connotation that the original group built over decades with their thoughts and actions. - Gwopy 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

It is totally inappropriate to include the Black Panther Party template at the bottom of the New Black Panther page. Also, I find it inappropriate to include a link to the New Black Panther party inside the Black Panther Party template. It's as if Wikipedia keeps insisting the two organizations are the same when they clearly are not. This is misleading and almost seems intentional, when sources clearly state the two are not and never were affiliated. If I created a new organization and named it, say, "The New White House" would you put a link to my organization on the Wikipedia White House page? I think not. Previous posters here have mentioned things like "many members of the original/real party don't agree". I would challenge you to find one member of the original party who agrees with the New Black Panthers. stpky4 18:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitascript (talk • contribs)

new info regarding November 2008 election controversy

This new article from the Washington Times says the person who approved dropping the charges was Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This new article says that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is demanding that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the charges. The commission suggested that the dismissal could encourage other hate groups to behave the same way, and that if the Ku Klux Klan had done the same thing the charges would probably not have been dropped, and that the same rules should apply to everyone. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph uncritically repeats the story spun by the conservative talk shows. For example, the statement "but against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, department superiors ordered the suit dropped against the remaining members" is unsupported and part of Adams's charges which are his personal opinion and for which there is no evidence in the public domain. The statement should be attributed to Adams and not presented as objective fact. Thewisper (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Originally, there was a citation there (for "against the advice of prosecutors") but it appears to have been removed. The article it pointed to was here. As a result, there is at least one Washington Times reporter using sources beyond Adam's charges that support that claim. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A more objective presention would note that the Bush Justice Department could have filed criminal charges instead of the civil lawsuit cited in reference 30, but chose not to. Obviously both the Bush and the Obama Justice Departments thought the case was a weak one. Thewisper (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And for more an objective presentation, we should note that the BUSH DOJ chose civil prosecutions over criminal. We should also note that the OBAMA DOJ felt that the default judgments against the four defendants was unnecessary. We need to note that OBAMA DOJ opposes judgments after the fact, even if they were there, they would never prosecute civil proceedings against any fine upstanding minorities. They believe our resources are better served to reverse the decisions of the previous administration, instead of protecting civil rights. Well, at least when it applies to non-blacks being denied the 15th Amendment and against the Voting Rights Act echoing such sediment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.19.71.236 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(In reply to both Thewisper and 189.19.71.236) Without secondary reliable sources, both of those assertions become original research and/or speculation to support a particular POV. --03:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider restoring New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case?

I note that there was previously an article with the title New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, which was merged into this one. I think there is probably enough content, and sources available, to justify restoring it as a separate article. One reason for doing this is that I have discovered biographies of some of the people related to this case: J. Christian Adams and Christopher Coates. These people probably aren't notable enough to have their own articles, but if an article on the case was recreated they could be merged into it. Otherwise, those articles will probably have to be nominated for deletion. Robofish (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to have an article of its own. Especially as the mention of it here is very limited. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems okay to me, as it will rescue the other material and provide focus for the incident there while having a brief synopsis and "main article" tag back here. My only reservation would be that if after given time, it's not considerably more substantive than what would be reasonable for just a subsection here, then we should probably look at moving the material back here again. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is anybody going to go ahead with recreating the article? Consensus seems to support this idea, but nobody's actually done it yet. And I'm reluctant to take on this task myself while I'm occupied with an arbitration case about an unrelated article. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine, but it is important to use reliable sources. Also, some thought should be given to the name, to make sure it is NPOV. TFD (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I linked to some sources discussing this case on the talk page of the J. Christian Adams article, in this thread. I could probably find some more sources about this, if those aren't enough. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Founding?

The article says in several places that NBPP was founded in 1989, but also says in the history section tat the founder was inspired by a 1990 press conference. This is impossible; which is right?.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

According to their website, the NBPP was founded in 1989 and celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2009.

According to The New York Times, the group has been around "in one form or another" since 1989.

According to the website of the Anti-Defamation League, the NBPP was founded in 1990 when Aaron Michaels was inspired by a press conference.

Take your pick. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why delete highly publicized Samir Shabazz's call: "I hate white people... kil them... kill their babies"?

Why does Malik Shabazz delete the following:

Anti-White racist incitement in public

Some in the NBPP who have been part of the Nation of Islam are among those fanning racial hatred for purposes of political power.

Former Nation of Islam member, King Samir Shabazz is one of those who revived racism in the party, he was filmed shouting in public:

"I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker I hate ... You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers. You're gonna have to kill some of they [sic] babies. Let us get our act together. It's time to wake up, clean up, and stand up."

Trendsies (talk)

If you read my edit summary you would know: because blogs and YouTube videos, the sources you used last time, are not reliable sources. You're still relying on blogs, and it isn't clear why this isn't undue weight. Why do Samir Shabazz's rantings merit mention in an article about the NBPP? Does he represent the party when he speaks? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this source [6] Something could be added to the article simply basing it on this source rather than using his whole hate speech in the video footage itself.

"Asked whether he agreed with the sentiments of Samir Shabazz, seen in other video footage calling white people "crackers" and urging blacks to kill them and their babies, the chairman said "no." But he acknowledged he may have called whites "crackers" himself.". If it belongs on this article or not is another matter, i must confess im rather surprised that the section on voter intimidation is so small, considering how serious it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just seen one of the sources the IP added, the CNN editoral source [7] seems like a reliable source to back up the full hate speech used. So just comes down to if its notable enough to be mentioned in detail on this article. Considering the entire section on the controversy this one guy has called, id say his past statement is racist rant is relevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In many articles, editors are keen to include the latest news, but usually it is better to wait to see how that news becomes interpreted. If a registered Democrat or Republican called someone a cracker no one would argue about putting into those articles. Let us wait until an article is written in a mainstream publication that we can use. TFD (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox news is a reliable source that has covered this and has details on it. the CNN editorial link has the transcript of what the guy said. Some more sources would be useful, but i think its notable enough for inclusion. We are not just talking about a registered democrat or republican. The man in question, a member of this organisation was clearly up to no good on election day and some past background on the guy (like his racist rant) would be useful within this article, considering the guy doesnt justify a whole article for himself.

I really do not understand how people can downplay this issue, seems very serious to me as an outsider. Maybe i watch too much fox ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How are the actions of individual members of a party relevant to an article about the party? We need to be able to show that there is a connection otherwise it is synthesis. Can you find any articles that discuss this connection? How is this different from a member of another party acting in a similar way? TFD (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To BritishWatcher, the sources I provided: ADL, CNN are hardly "blogs" (you can remove a "blog" source, but the facts have to be stated) whereas there is no reason to exclude it. Stop vandalizing the site!Trendsies (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the sources. However, there is still the relevant concern of undue weight, putting up in block quotes the racist rant of a former member of the organization who has been kicked out when the relevant information is already related by a sourced statement, to wit: "Former Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party member, King Samir Shabazz, had a long history of confrontational racist behavior, advocating racial separation and making incendiary racial statements while promoting anti-police messages in the media and on the streets of Philadelphia." [Numerous Citations]

Perhaps you could clarify why direct quotations of an inflammatory racial tirade is necessary when this article is primarily about the organization rather than a discredited individual (King Samir Shabbaz)? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't his famous quotes (with such noteriety) be quoted?Trendsies (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been explained just a few lines above. Putting up in block quotation of racial epithets of a former NBPP member who has been disavowed by the organization for his extremist views is undue weight for an article on the organization itself. Does this expelled member who made racist rants represent the views of the NBPP? No, he does not. Therefore, instead of quoted racial epithets, appropriate weight has already been given to the individual by this sentence that already exists in the article: "Former Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party member, King Samir Shabazz, had a long history of confrontational racist behavior, advocating racial separation and making incendiary racial statements while promoting anti-police messages in the media and on the streets of Philadelphia." That sentence is followed by numerous source citations for the reader to follow up on. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous to leave this out. It's being left out for obvious racially motivated reasons. Another example of reverse racism on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.231.118 (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree...CTCooper, Malik, MarnetteD and all of those other admins are showing that they're truly partisan and non-neutral. They don't realize that no matter how hard they try, they can't distort the facts to fit their ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.231.118 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Attacking others here is not going to help get the thing included, its going to make it less likely. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still failing to address the fact that this represents the views of the NBPP, and it's not included...where's the logic in this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.200.6.40 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Does an expelled member who made racist rants, "represent the views of the NBPP"? Didn't the NBPP repudiate this person and disavow him? --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This organisation has become more notable because of the incident in the 2008 presidential election involving the man in question who was a member at the time. Some background on this mans extreme views seems valid, especially as there is no lone article on the guy. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We have this background on him in the article at present: "Former Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party member, King Samir Shabazz, had a long history of confrontational racist behavior, advocating racial separation and making incendiary racial statements while promoting anti-police messages in the media and on the streets of Philadelphia." That sentence is followed by numerous source citations for the reader to follow up on. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of racial epithet statements/quotes from former NBPP member

To AzureCitizen, Azure, why did you just vandalize the page, what "quotes" are you referring to?Colourfully (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz, You asked, Who's Samir Shabazz and why it is important? He was an outspoken member of New Black Panther Party, he did call in public to kill white babies, it says it all. So now you and AzureCitizen have changed again & again the edits according to your personal POV? is this fairColourfully (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions Samir Shabazz. It gives him the amount of attention that is appropriate. Please read WP:Neutral point of view, particularly "Due and undue weight". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Colourfully/Trendsies. I reverted your edit here based on undue weight concerns (similar to the previous edits in which racial epithet quotes were inserted from a former NBPP member). The individual in question has clearly made confrontational incendiary racist comments; no one is disputing that. However, he is a former member of the group who is obviously an extremist. This article is about the NBPP; that individual does not speak for the NBPP and his racist rants are not endorsed by the NBPP nor are they NBPP policies, so care must be taken with regard to due weight in including this individual in the article. There is already a reasonable and descriptive sentence included in the "controversy" subsection that the individual was a former member, that he had a long history of confrontational racist behavior, that he advocated racial separation and made incendiary racial statements, that he promoted anti-police messages, and that he did so in both the media and on the streets of Philadelphia. That statement is well sourced, practically overly so - before your edit, it contained seven citations. By adding more sources and bringing the number to 10, it becomes citation overkill. In your edits you also sought to separate the material into a new section called "racism" and include that this individual was shouting in public to kill white people and their babies. I will assume that's true, and do not care to watch the videos myself. But the truth or falsity of that aside, proper weight is a guiding Wikipedia policy that must be considered. Why does the NBPP article need descriptions of an extremist former members racial epithets in such fashion? We've already described the individual in an encyclopedic fashion and given voluminous reference citations for the reader to follow up on if they are interested. Why is it important to include that he shouted "kill white people" and "kill their babies" when this article is not about him, he is no longer a member, and he is not their spokesperson?

Was King Samir Shabazz kicked out of the new black panthers? Can you provide me a link which says that? Also these comments were highly publicized and their inclusion definitely is not undue weight(although their own section would be).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wikiposter, I saw your comment and did some searching, and did not find a link that he was kicked out of the NBPP; also, I certainly agree that the comments were highly publicized. However, I still think inclusion of statements about killing white people and killing cracker babies is a weight issue. Extremists with racial supremacist views often make incendiary racist statements, but quoting the specifics of their epithets and slurs isn't necessary when we can describe them in dispassionate and factual terms backed up by reliable sourcing. Taking a look at some other supremacy groups by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:White_supremacist_groups_in_the_United_States, I did not find other individuals singled out for quotations of racist epithet rants, so I'm having trouble understanding why including statements about killing "cracker babies" is in neutral point of view proportion here. Also, have you seen the number of citations already appended to the existing text in the article? The latest edits would have taken it from a redundant seven, to ten. As a result, I agree with Malik Shabazz that the article already gives the appropriate amount of attention necessary to King Samir Shabbaz. About the only thing I might add would be the individuals real name, which appears to be Maurice Heath, or add information about new incidents if he is still a member today and provokes significant additional controversies.--AzureCitizen (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Azure / Malik! If you check my contrib. you won't fid me adding the word cracker, nor did I quote him, so next time you rush into reverting edits check the diff. I made.Colourfully (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok the reason why I asked whether or not you have a link saying he was kicked out is because in this interview the leader says he was not kicked out and only put on probation(for a few weeks). Anyway the comments by him were highly televised and should be included due to how much attention were given to them and because the New Black Panthers have not kicked him out.(as was falsely stated several times in the post above mine)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy concerning undue weight has nothing to do with whether the tabloid press highlights the rantings of Samir Shabazz. I really recommend you read WP:UNDUE and try to explain why this article isn't giving the incident sufficient weight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NOI's NBPP & Samir's incitement to 'kill whites'

Thank you wikiposter0123, it took for NBPP's head Malik Zulu Shabazz so much time since the airing of the National Geographic film until the so called "rejection" of the 'kill white babies' statement. There's absolutely no reason for exclusion after so much publicity, in fact I don't get this game by AzureCitizen/Malik Shabazz to rush and revert edit, Malik even posted some kind of a "warning" on my talk page while he goes on in this edit fight war w/o any justification at all. As to edits by poster trendies, he quoted the ephitet itself, I still hesitate to do that, asides from just recapping itColourfully (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC) AzureCitizen, you just reverted again without even checking the discussion.Colourfully (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

— Trendsies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Colourfully (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello. I saw that you re-inserted the same material you inserted three times before in identical fashion. Please read WP:BRD. The material is objected to because 1) there is overkill on cited sources, mushrooming from seven to now ten, 2) you created a new subsection called "racism" to which Malik Shabbaz, Wikiposter0123, and myself see as undue weight, and 3) Malik Shabbaz and myself feel appropriate attention has already been paid to King Samir Shabbaz on the NBPP Wikipedia article with regards to racial epithets ("kill white babies") while Wikiposter0123 has expressed support for it. Please read the comments above and engage in debate and discussion if you disagree. Also, please note that the account contributions above show accusations of "vandalism" when people have objected to the inserted material. Please take a look at WP:VANDALISM so that you can understand that policy; good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are never vandalism, nor are edits and reverts over content dispute. WP:3RR, however, is a bright light policy that requires special consideration; it would be better for all if you discuss the material here on the Talk Page rather than re-inserting it continuously. The "warning" you received from user Malik Shabbaz here was simply a standard 3RR warning in that regard, so please consider that no offense was intended. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Colourfully's revert today was her/his fourth, so Colourfully has been blocked for 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Would someone object to the summary of his quote being cite within the "ref" tags?Colourfully (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just removed a runover of a commment from Malik Shabazz by Colourfully. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Colorfully, if I understand you correctly, you'd like to put a summary of a racist quote from Maurice Heath inside the reference tags of an applicable reference, so that it doesn't appear in the paragraphs of the article but does appear down in the reference section? I'm not strongly averse to that, but I would ask if perhaps you could state your concern or what it is you would like to accomplish, i.e., are you worried that the existing reference citations won't take the reader to articles where the information (included quoted racial epithets) is provided? It would seem there is an abundance of reference citations already, far more for that one sentence than there is anywhere else in the article. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Basic Questions.

How many members does this organization have, or claim to have? How many chapters do they have? Are there any outside of the USA? Does their rhetoric of revolution mean just the USA, or the entire world?

This article does have news organization talking points, but lacks basic facts. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New article about voter intimidation case

As was suggested by several editors here and here, I’ve just recreated the article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. This case has been in the news a lot lately, and I think it’s definitely notable enough to deserve its own article by this point. Any of you can look at the list of sources I’ve assembled about this case to get an idea of its notability—the coverage it’s received includes five articles in the Washington Post, five from the Associated Press, four from CNN, three from CBS, and more than 50 from the Washington Times.

When this article previously existed a few months ago, it was subsequently merged into the New Black Panther Party article because it contained less information than what was already in that article, but I don’t think that’s a problem with my new version of the article.

In case this isn’t obvious, I’ve put a lot of work into developing this article in my userspace over the past month, and it’s my hope that there’s very little that needs to be changed about it at this point. Any improvements or suggestions from other editors are still welcome, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed claims re: anti-Semitism which are not reflected by their cited sources

I was checking some sources, and they didn't reflect what's claimed in the article. The claims were that members of the organization made particular anti-Semitic claims and statements. (The statements, if true, are pretty vile, so I don't wish to re-type them here - check History for specifics.) But I checked the three sources listed, and none of them reference these statements or claims at all! (One article from Southern Poverty Law Center seems to have lapsed and been replaced with something entirely different.) This may indicate a further review of the whole article for invalid claims is warranted. Regardless, I only removed those few claims which directly did not reflect the cited sources.

The sources were:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4869_12.htm

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17635

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=214

WallyCuddeford (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Confirmed) Anti-Whites racism

Malik Shabazz -unexplained- deleted the following:

National Geographic reported on "the New Black Panther Party's anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric." Former Nation of Islam's King Samir Shabbazz: "I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota,” and suggested the killing of white babies."

Saverol (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the long sections titled #Why delete highly publicized Samir Shabazz's call: "I hate white people... kil them... kill their babies"? and #Inclusion of racial epithet statements/quotes from former NBPP member above. Also, please read WP:Undue weight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, most of the sources you cite aren't considered reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? What of the following sources not "so reliable" in your opinion: CNN [8], Washington Times [9], WSJ [10], ADL [11],NYTimes [12],NYpost [13]. (please provide evidence of your claim) Saverol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC).

You haven't addressed the question of why King Samir Shabazz's statement is so important that it merits quotation in full. Was he an NBPP spokesman? Was his statement an official position of the NBPP? The article already mentions him and has footnotes that linked to several of your sources.

And many of the "reliable" sources you link to are editorials or other opinion columns. They are not permitted as reliable sources with respect to facts, except for their authors' opinions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The ADL for example is not an "opinion piece." Nor is the piece in CNN. The National Geographic featured Samir Shabazz as a spokesman to the NBPP and (approriately) called on the organization's (therefor) racism! My edit specifically mentioned N.G. as the source right at the beginning.Saverol (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Still avoiding the main question. I'll ask you again: Why is King Samir Shabazz's statement so important that it merits quotation in full? Was he an NBPP spokesman? Was his statement an official position of the NBPP? Before you answer, you might want to read WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

His controversy made big headlines as some of the sources (quoted above) show. Why else would the NYtimes [for instance] even mention it? FYI, I did NOT quote his quote in full, yet. So what's your objection really about? Now, if you have an objection POV against the National Geographic view of linking his [anti white racist and genocidal] statement to the official line of the NBPP (whatever that us according to your POV), you are welcomed to state your personal opinion here on the talk. Not on the main page of NBPP.Saverol (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What's my objection really about? I told you in my first edit summary, and I've been repeating it ever since -- undue weight. I'm starting to get the feeling that you just aren't listening.

As far as The New York Times goes, it isn't bound by Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Undue weight. We are. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So you and AzureCitizen are objecting it, and you still failed to explain exactly why you do other than your POV VS National Geographic. BTW, Here's another source, not mentioned above, from CNN, and also not an "opinion" piece.

Official alleges racially selective enforcement of voting rights cases JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
In September 24, 2010|By Mike M. Ahlers, CNN
A Justice Department lawyer testified Friday the department does not enforce certain voting law cases when the victims are white, and called the decision to drop a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party "a travesty of justice."
The New Black Panther Party case stemmed from an incident on November 4, 2008 -- Election Day -- when two members of the party stood outside a Philadelphia polling station yelling racial slurs. Both men wore paramilitary outfits and black books; one held a nightstick.
No voters filed complaints in the incident, but it was captured on video and appeared on national television.

Coates told the Civil Rights Commission, "White voters also have an interest in being able to go to the polls without having race-haters such as Black Panther King Samir Shabazz -- whose public rhetoric includes such statements as 'kill cracker babies' -- standing at the entrance of the polling place with a billy club in his hand hurling racial slurs."[14]

Saverol (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the issue of undue weight. This isn't an article about King Samir Shabazz. It's an article about the NBPP. Why is Shabazz's quote so significant to this article that it needs to be quoted in full? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the fact that I did NOT quote the quote in full (yet). So why is he "important" in the context of the NBPP you ask?

King Samir Shabazz, head of the party's Philadelphia chapter. [15].

So would every "head" be, in any organization. Wou;dn't you agree?Saverol (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Was that really so hard?

The article already mentions King Samir Shabazz, and rather than start a new section about him, I recommend that you add to the existing paragraph. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I now see that he's mentioned under "Recent controversies." Though, it's not so "recent" any more. Nor did it mention the call to 'kill white babies.' (even without full quotation).Saverol (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the sources you added because none of them were reliable sources. Some were editorials, others were self-published books, and the CNN article was about Coates and what he had to say about Shabazz, not what CNN had to say about Shabazz. I'm going to add the New York Times article cited above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Added the SPLC's: "As the head of the party's Philadelphia chapter, in a National Geographic documentary, January 2009" Saverol (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to integrate that information into the section. I'm also going to remove the section heading because of WP:Undue weight. I don't think that paragraph needs special highlighting. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You think that "voter intimidation" outweighs "killing white babies"? Added "anti-white and anti-Semitic" wording straight from that National Gegraphic source.Saverol (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think a controversy involving alleged voter intimidation that has reached the U.S. Justice Department is more significant than a lone nut calling for killing white babies. What about you? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Legal-wise maybe. Morality wise too ("killing white babies" by the head of Phil. chapter of NBPP What do you mean -then- by "lone")? More importantly, what is more of a significant case about/of NBPP as opposed to Eric Holder's? You might have more of a reason if the page discussed would be DoJ.

• Please elaborate what you mean by "alleged." And Has there been a refute from NBPP? on the so-called "allegation"?
• What reasoning do you have to delete National Geographic own wording from that very source/on that same issue?Saverol (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lone, as in one person.

Alleged, as in not proven.

We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a lesson in morality. Please re-read WP:Undue weight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Worse is the "blogging" style against SPLC. BTW, the National Geographic categorizes the NBPP as racist like the KKK. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights cast the NBPP as a hate group. So does the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. And another important item added: the USDOJ says it's "a splinter group of the Nation of Islam."Saverol (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't. Perhaps you need new reading glasses?

The article refers to "two factions of the KKK, a splinter group of the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, and perhaps other protesters". That doesn't say the NBPP is a splinter group of the NOI any more than it says the KKK is.

If you keep up this WP:IDHT behavior, I'm going to file a complaint against you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:IDHT behavior. Why did you removed the following?

• National Geographic categorizes the NBPP as racist like the KKK.
• The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights cast the NBPP as a hate group. So does the National Criminal Justice Reference Service." ? So who do you thin the 'splinter group of NOI' is.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights states that "The NBPP is a recognized hate group that is explicitly anti-Semitic and anti-white."(U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, interim report, 11-23-2010 [16]. Retrieved August 13, 2011.]) And the National Criminal Justice Reference Service lists the NBPP (like the NOI) as a "Black hate group", which "espouse racist, anti-white rhetoric and propose an extremist agenda of Black nationalism." (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Title: American Hate and Patriot-Militia Movements. NCJ Number: NCJ 193137. Authors: Miki Vohryzek-Bolden, Gayle Olson-Raymer, Jeffrey O. Whamond. Published 2001 [17]) The National Geographic states: "Similar to hate factions like the KKK and neo-Nazis, the New Black Panther Party is a militant hate group, headquartered in Washington, D.C. that seeks to redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what it sees as white supremacy." (Inside the New Black Panthers, National Geographic 2009 [18]).

Saverol (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1) Which part of WP:Undue weight is unclear to you?

2) What makes National Geographic a reliable source with respect to hate organizations?

3) The article already says that the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, two organizations well-known as sources on hate groups, classify the NBPP as a hate group.

4) Which part of WP:Undue weight is unclear to you? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

1) The current text belittles the SPLC as simply a "long time critic" of the org. Might suggest they have some "unexplained beef."
2) Just beacause such sources as http://usccr.gov - U.S. Commission on Civil Rights mentions that "other" groups consider it a hate group, does NOT make the source "invalid," in the context of stating "recognized hate group."
3) Which part of an official branch linked to the US Governemnt considering (as well) as a hate group is not clear to you? WP:Undue weight
4) Do you consider the National Geographic a RS or not? Or you have now decided in which context it is? Saverol (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC) It has been three days without a (proper) response (besides your last intimidation "warning".) You MIGHT be right only vis-a-vis the source about NBPP being a splinter group of the NOI Which is the part I am not going to reinstate.Saverol (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

NBPP is Fascist

I think that the left economics combined with the supremacist sociali policy suggests that the NBPP is fascist or Third Positionist

---

Another point that might be considered is adding the important detail of "fascist-style uniforms" according to th writer Hans A. von Spakovsky

• Hans A. von Spakovsky April 27, 2010 4:00 A.M. Voter Intimidation, New Black Panther Style

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229625/voter-intimidation-new-black-panther-style/hans-von-spakovsky (Voter Intimidation, New Black Panther Style 27 Apr 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2010/04/voter-intimidation-black-panther-style fascist-style paramilitary uniforms)

• The Corner - With Due Apologies to Abigail Thernstrom . . .

July 28, 2010 9:54 A.M. By Hans A. von Spakovsky It is obvious that the Black Panthers were trying to intimidate individuals in their black paramilitary, fascist-style uniforms with nightsticks, and that is all that is necessary to violate Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/233685/due-apologies-abigail-thernstrom-hans-von-spakovsky
Saverol (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving material recently added to the lede to the talk page for discussion

The following was recently added directly into the lede, in a prominent position just below the first paragraph:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights states that "The NBPP is a recognized hate group that is explicitly anti-Semitic and anti-white."[5] And the National Criminal Justice Reference Service lists the NBPP (like the NOI) as a "Black hate group", which "espouse racist, anti-white rhetoric and propose an extremist agenda of Black nationalism."[6] The National Geographic states: "Similar to hate factions like the KKK and neo-Nazis, the New Black Panther Party is a militant hate group, headquartered in Washington, D.C. that seeks to redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what it sees as white supremacy."[7]

I have concerns with the way this material has been inserted, and will parse them out here for editors to discuss per WP:BRD. Before proceeding, it should be noted that the first paragraph of the lede correctly notes that the ADL and the SPLC have classified the NBPP as a "hate group."

• The newly sentence from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is framed as a cherry picked quotation from a commission report on the incident involving the Department of Justice and the litigation involving the NBPP, taken from the first page of Appendix B. For it's source (see foot note 295), however, it simply quotes the ADL. As a result, it's simply recirculating something already present in the lede when used in such fashion. I think we can add the Commission to the company of the ADL and SPLC in considering the NBPP a hate group, but I feel that the way this is being quoted and sourced is misleading.

• The sentence on the NCJRS is significantly flawed. The NCJRS does not "list the NBPP as a Black hate group". The NCJRS is a just a reference service, administered by the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs, which provides access to a library collection filled with documents and publications. One of them is a paper by the authors Miki Vohryzek-Bolden, Gayle Olson-Raymer, Jeffrey O. Whamond, titled "American Hate and Patriot-Militia Movements," which contains the abstracted quote "Black hate groups, including the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party, espouse racist, anti-white rhetoric...", etc. But again, that does not mean that the "National Criminal Justice Reference Service" classifies the NBPP as a hate group. That would be like saying that the National Library of Congress "lists the NBPP as a hate group" because there happens to be a book in that library that says so, and the online library catalog happens to be searchable so you can post a link to it. Thus, this sentence doesn't make any sense the way it's been employed here.

• Similarly, the sentence concerning National Geographic has been framed inappropriately, stating "The National Geographic states:", etc. It seems to be implying that the National Geographic Society has taken a position on the issue and has issued a public statement as to whether or not it classifies the NBPP as a hate group. Instead, National Geographic produced a special which was released in video format on their website, titled "Inside the New Black Panther Party", and the quote is a tagline therefrom. This material might be usable somewhere in the article, but it doesn't belong in the lede the way it's been used. Perhaps someone might want to suggest how the material might be better incorporated somewhere else in the body. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Black Supremacist?"

I've just visited the official website, and I am not finding anything that sounds like "Black Supremacist" ideology. Cyclopiano (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats because they're clever about it. Unlike the KKK, they don't state it outright. They're actions show it though. 69.115.70.39 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Membership?

I'd find the article more useful if someone could provide (verifiable) membership numbers. My belief is that the NBPP consists of about 20-30 persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.8.146 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right on both points. If you find a reliable source that discusses their membership, by all means add it to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

State of this article

This article has been subjected to the insertion of false quotes, inflammatory quotes/sources, wording intended to skew the neutrality of this article etc.. I've made a small attempt to clean it up by inserting some actual quotes from the cited sources and removing a deliberately inflammatory quote and source, but this article still needs more help. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that controversial articles on WPdia such as this should have a careful eye kept on them to prevent them being turned to crap with similar problems found in this article. 184.17.119.170 (talk) 08:42, 23 May 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 14:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Exterminate White People

Someone may want to add a reference to this. I don't know how to get the direct link, but from foxnews.com if you click on video and then on US there is an entry titled "'Exterminate' Follow Up" where the NBPP supports the professor who advocated "exterminating white people off the face of the earth" or something to that effect. It's a clip from a Hannity and Colmes show. AbstractClass 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have now added that and a link to the video clip in the new Anti-Europeanism section. Thank you. 85.82.195.131 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Theres also a BBC documentary done by Louis Theroux where he interviews previous leader Khallid Muhammad who repeatedly states the white race should be exterminated. And just my opinion, they seem like a black version of the KKK. Also, apparently any figure in history with a positive influence was black..

"they seem like a black version of the KKK" ... Do they, indeed? Could you possibly lay out for us a few of the lynchings, cross-burnings, whippings, night-rides they have initiated? I mean, just to illuminate for us what it is about them and their activities that justify a statement of that extremity. I mean, why not just go whole-hog on your hystreria and label them as "... a black version of the SS."? - JTGILLICK (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - it's a vague association/comparison. Perhaps relating them to Mel Gibson's anti-semiote tirades would be more apt? The point isn't they're "just like" the KKK - but that their ideologies are similar - racial genocide, single color supremacy.76.5.245.156 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't miss your point at all. Without reservation or demur on details, you equated the NBPP with the KKK - and you did not distinguish between ideology and action in each because that would have watered down the equation. But thank you for both laying out the weakness (and, dare I say it, deliberate dishonesty?) in your argument - by admitting to it being the feeble generalization it is with your "vague association/comparison"/concession.

Your attempt to paint the NBPP as worse than it actually is by making a "vague association/comparison" to one of the most reviled and most criminal associations (in its action, got that?: actions, actions, actions) in the history of the United States - without offering one specific reference for comparison, without drawing any lines of association whatsoever - was little more than a self-indulgent an exercise in simple-minded demagoguery. And, as such, an exercise not unlike comparing B. H. Obama to Mao, to Hitler, to Stalin (just making one of those "vague association/comparison"s you're enamored of there. Good by you?).

JTGILLICK (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about the topic of the article. This particular conversation is off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis Theroux: Black nationalism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1814422790492046311&hl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.179.46 (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he talks the talk... but does he walk the walk? I watched it twice and I still can't pick out the lynching in it. JTGILLICK (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is not a good news source. It has a conservative viewpoint. 67.232.196.34 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get an unbiased view of what Kamau Kambon said about the elimination of the white race, he was recorded at an event on C-Span 10-14-95. This video may only be accessible with a fee to buy the video now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J dot Hall (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox news transcript of related conversation, this ref may help. of course fox news is biased, but the man invited on voluntarily refuses to distance himself from genocide. Of course, he's not given a fair shake, but considering the comments he is asked to talk about, that does need to be cleared up before he can talk about any good his group may be doing.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.140.126 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fox News is not a good news source. It has a conservative viewpoint." And how is a liberal viewpoint any better? To quote Jess, "Our sources are not required to be neutral. WP:NPOV specifies that we, as editors, must be "neutral" by sticking to the sources." 2602:306:C4EF:2BA0:5076:566F:FA8C:F2A2 (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Black Panthers Put $10,000 Bounty on George Zimmerman’s Head

http://americanoverlook.com/black-panthers-put-10000-bounty-on-george-zimmermans-head/101461 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade-of-the-South (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Ideology" in infobox

According to Template talk:Infobox political party#New proposal, the "Ideology" field is intended for "the official, self-stated ideology of a party, and not what is the opinion of media and other outside observers. To use anything else than the party's official position here would be against WP:NPOV and will only lead to edit wars and disputes over what is to be considered a reliable source."

While the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center are reliable sources for their opinions, they are not reliable sources for facts. According to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, their opinions should be attributed to them (as they are, for example, in the last paragraph of this article's lead section).

It is an NPOV violation to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that the NBPP's ideology is racism and cite the SPLC as a source for this "fact". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, racism in itself is not much of an ideology. It is attached to various political agendas, nationalistic and "race pride" ideas. We do have to distinguish between them. Dimadick (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Racism is not an ideology and WP:LABEL prevents us from calling people racists. I disagree though that the info-box should show the ideology that group's claim to have. The self-description of right-wing groups in particular tends to differ from how informed observers describe them, although "Black Nationalist" seems accurate. TFD (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Could we put their ideology as antisemitism? I mean their leaders have made very antisemetic statements that apparently represent the Party's agenda. I believe we are allowed to put "antisemitism" as an ideology. Also I believe we should also put Afrocentrism as their ideology. Also should we put Anti-capitalism as their ideology as well? Here is a reference for the Party's Black Supremacist sentiment... http://washingtonweeklynews.com/new-black-panther-leader-hunt-down-and-kill-white-people/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangokeylime (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay never mind I looked at their website, they claim that they support Anti-Imperialism, Black pride, anti-capitalism, Black nationalism, and Pan-Africanism. Lets just put that in the infobox.Mangokeylime (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ideology, according to Webster is "the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party."[19] The info-box should not list all the ideas and beliefs but state what the set is called. So for example liberals believe in freedom, democracy, free trade, etc., but we state their ideology as liberalism. Black nationalism is an ideology, the others are not. TFD (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Black supremacy category

The connection offered is

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the NBPP as a black separatist hate group and notes that its members hold black supremacist religious views",

which I don't think is sufficient to support the inclusion of the categories of "Black supremacy" and "Black supremacists". Please let me know if there's be any concerns with removing this categories from the article. Pls also see Black supremacy article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The source says:

The NBPP is notable for its anti-white and anti-Semitic hatred. Its leaders have blamed Jews for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and for the slave trade. ...

NBPP members also hold black-supremacist religious beliefs. Some think that blacks are God's true "chosen people" and that the people normally called "Jews" actually are impostors (this ideology is remarkably similar to the white racist theology of Christian Identity, which says whites are God's real chosen people). They believe that blacks are naturally superior to people of other races. ... (emphasis added)

The contrast between the forthrightness with which the SPLC calls the NBPP anti-white and antisemitic, but only says that its members hold black supremacist religious beliefs suggests the party itself does not officially promulgate anything the SPLC could describe as black supremacist. I recommend we remove the article from the two black supremacy categories it's in. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

People only knows Kémi Seba

Wikipedia have to use the name that is known. In France, in Europe, on TV, newspaper, radios... everyone knows Kémi Seba, but none knows Stellio. When Wikipédia make a page for Marylin Monroe for instance, she is called "Marylin Monroe", not "Norma Jean Baker" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:6857:3794:E1ED:DCC8 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a good argument for moving the article. The French Wikipedia is also located at Kémi Séba. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)