Talk:New Black Panther Party

Black supremacist?

User:Mittjohn11, firstly I presume that the message on my talk page relates to this page (it is normal to leave a message at the bottom of a talk page, in a new section if need be, in order that the subject be clear).

Let me explain some basics, firstly, both the lead and the infobox are summaries of the article - therefore any content in either should be first of all in the body of the text. Descriptions in the infobox should be ONLY those endorsed by the majority of WP:RS as fact, this is true whether the descriptions are positive or critical.

In the case of NBPP, the only mention of black supremacist/m in the body of the article 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". Even that text needs 'fixing' since the SPLC source actually says "Shabazz would later claim that Jews had received advance warning of the attacks, a conspiracy theory that is also highly popular in white supremacist and neo-Nazi circles". So what we actually have is "some NBPP members hold the same conspiracist views as white supremacists, therefore those individuals are black supremacists, therefore NBPP is a black supremacist org". That involves several logical 'leaps into the dark'.

I intend to again remove your text from the lead and infobox and it should NOT be restored until the body of the text establishes that the majority of sources describe NBPP as bl supremacist - which at present it is clear they do not. I will also later today try to amend the text about SPLC's opinion such that it more accurately reflects what SPLC say. BTW, SPLC is usually treated as being includable as to their opinion, but not reliable as to fact (ie their view of an org is worth including, but should be treated as an opinion, not as a fact). Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Are the nbpp a black supremacy group?

Yes the new black panther party are a black supremacy organization bent on establishing a black only racial society seperated from non blacks Mittjohn11 (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)|

Then it should not be difficult to find good sources that describe them thus.Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Nbpp is a black supremacy group

Just add them as a black supremacy based group. Why not? Mittjohn11 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:VPincrete (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ideologies

User:Docktuh, information which is in the infobox should be a summary, and should be cited there, or in the text summarised. There is no mention anywhere in the article of NBPP being opposed to Israel or to Zionism - there is one use by one individual of the term 'zionist', which in context is being used to mean 'Jewish'. NBPP may be anti-zionist, but nothing in the article supports that this is a core belief of NBPP. Similarly, there is no mention of pan-Africanism. Therefore I will remove both of these as ideologies.

I don't see how antisemitism can be an ideology (as opposed to an aspect) unless it is a core belief espoused by all members - as opposed to a facet displayed sometimes by some, according to some commentators. Even an extreme right-wing org like KKK, which is anti-black, anti-semetic, anti-catholic etc - the central ideology is white supremacy, not anti- anyone.

I want to make clear that I do not doubt that some (including SPLC), view NBPP leaders as anti-semetic and the org as an anti-white and anti-semetic hate group. I am not trying to whitewash an org which I know little about except what is written here - but whilst I believe NBPP should be kept in the anti-semetic category, I see no evidence in the article that anti-semetism is a core ideology. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Docktuh, I see the refs you have added. I don't dispute in the least that prominent individuals in NBPP have made anti-semetic, and (less so probably) anti-zionist remarks - that is indisputable and anti-semetism is obviously fairly widespread within NBPP. What is disputable is that these traits are the group's ideology. I make the analogy above with KKK, within Europe there are parties such as Brexit Party, they are often described as 'zenophobic', often as 'English nationalist', but neither English nationalism nor zenophobia are described as their ideology, which is called 'Euroscepticism'. There are probably many militant mens' groups whose leaders or members are widely described as sexist or mysogynistic - but we wouldn't describe their ideology as 'sexism' or 'mysogynistic.

What you are trying to do IMO is to turn (probably justified) criticisms of NBPP's leaders or its members into a statement of what the group's core stated belief system is - which is surely what ideology means. Hating Jews, or enjoying making offensive remarks about them, is anti-semetism, but it isn't an ideology IMO. Not even the Nazi Party, nor Nazism, nor Fascism list 'anti-semetism' as an ideology!

If we are not able to agree this, I may take it to RfC. I don't think we disagree about what NBPP is (although I am UK, I can see these are fairly disagreeable people). I think we disagree about what an ideology is and how that parameter should be used in the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Kragen1611, 1) neither anti-zionism, nor opposition to gay rights are political ideologies - a prejudice or antipathy is not a political ideology. … … 2)the cites you give show individual NBPP leaders making anti-zionist/anti-gay remarks ... the cites prove that many of the leaders of this party have a taste for offensively stupid remarks, however they don't prove that the core political beliefs of NBPP are anti-zionism or anti-gay rights. To analogise, shall I find an offensively misogynistic or anti-hispanic remark made by the current occupant of the White House and use it to say that the core ideology of the US Republican Party is misogyny and opposition to Hispanic-rights? The infobox is a summary of the central facts of a political party, including their core political beliefs - it isn't a list of all the criticisms/labels/prejudices that others have accused them of. For these reasons I'm going to revert your additions - maybe some of the stuff you added belongs in the body of the article, though I would still caution about the difference between what a leader has said and what the group as a whole believe, and between using primary sources (interviews/articles etc BY leaders of NBPP) and reliable secondary sources commenting on NBPP. Even the latter would not usually warrant inclusion in the infobox, but should be in text in the body and would need usually to be attributed (eg SPLC track them as a hate because of their stance on X and Y). Pincrete (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-semitism, keeps being added as 'an ideology' - that is a central belief/tenet of the organisation. Let me be clear, I do not doubt that NBPP, and especially its leaders, are known for offensive, specifically anti-semetic, racist rhetoric and would not object to that content being made more specific/expanded. BUT, anti-semetism isn't an ideology - anymore than 'racism' is an ideology (white supremacism IS, a belief in the innate superiority of whites and a consequent belief in the right for whites to retain power).These people often hate whites and Jews, that isn't disputed by me, but hating another ethnicity isn't an ideology. Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Antisemitism is listed in the ideology section of the Ku Klux Klan article. That aspect has been discussed, debated and defended in talk pages such as here [1]. If it's considered correct to include Antisemitism on a more high profile article such as the Ku Klux Klan, I don't know that it should be precluded from this article, especially when you acknowledge it seems to be a clear characteristic of the group. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Second the cogent observation above. The leadership of the NBPP has on numerous occasions singled out the Jewish race specifically and purposely. It would call for a willining suspension of disbelief to say it is not a core tenet of their organization.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd never been to the KKK page before today, but we can both play the "other stuff exists" all day - neither the Nazi Party, nor Nazism list anti-semitism as ideologies (nor actually any of the other Nazi antipathies). You cannot turn an antipathy, albeit a virulent one, into the political ideology of the group. I repeat that I don't doubt for one second that NBPP leaders are known for their fairly nasty antisemitic rhetoric and that fact deserves to be given due prominence in the lead, but a hatred/prejudice/antipathy isn't an ideology - a core belief that underpins the political programme that they aspire to implement. Many political groups are criticised for many aspects of their beliefs, rhetoric or programmes but that does not make the criticisms into the ideology of the criticised group. What do NBPP intend to do if they ever achieve any political influence - hate Jews (even) more virulently? Certain European nationalist parties are almost universally criticised for being xenophobic, but some form of nationalism, not xenophobia is their ideology. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what your goal is in trying to split this hair other than to whitewash the NBPP anti-Semitic position. If you want to take it to the the notice board, please do, but it appears that the consensus thus far is to keep the anti-Semitic appellation and you are the only one who keeps removing it.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not the slightest wish to disguise the fact that NBPP is widely regarded as being anti-Semitic. That they are accused of being a hate group and the leaders of being racist and anti-Semitic is rightly made clear in the lead and in categories, along with who accuses them, and I resent the accusation of 'whitewashing'. But anti-Semitism isn't an ideology, that's like saying 'bigotry is a religion', which only works metaphorically. As I said before, even the Nazi party doesn't have anti-Semitism listed as an ideology, because it simply isn't one. You cannot turn a (probably much-deserved) criticism of their actions and rhetoric into an ideology. The long term position is to exclude, so the onus is on others to change that, not on me to maintain it. Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

NPOV: antisemitism omitted and other issues

Antisemitism is omitted from the ideology, antisemitism is cited as an ideology in so many other Wikipedia articles: National Socialist Network, Proud Boys, Black Front, American Front, etc., etc. "Anti-capitalism" has a primary source; the guidelines explicitly say you have to use reliable independent sources. See WP:RS; WP:INDIPENDENT; WP:REPUTABLE; WP:ELNO. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What happens on other WP articles isn't a valid argument - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I can more pertinently point to the fact that even the Nazi Party, doesn't list 'antisemitism' as an ideology - a hatred or prejudice isn't an ideology, whether it be a hatred of a race, sex or sexual orientation. NBPP don't propose hating Jews as a political position in the way that people propose socialism, or free-market capitalism. The article is explicit about NBPP being widely seen as anti-semetic, and often anti-white, but even SPLC don't say their ideology is anti-semitism. Primary sources can be used for non-contentious material, but the other sources probably mention anti-capitalism, I'll check. Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete Source says "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and antisemitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/new-black-panther-party

It is customary to include "antisemitism" among ideologies; it was also done with the Ku Klux Klan. Everything else is WP:OR and violation of WP:NPOV. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No one disputes that many sources - including SPLC - describe NBPP as anti-semetic (and anti-white), and that is rightly expressed clearly and given prominence, but it simply isn't true that It is customary to include "antisemitism" among ideologies, the fact that it is done on some articles is irrelevant - it isn't done on many others such as the Nazi party for goodness sake, which was as anti-semetic as it is possible to be! A hatred or prejudice isn't a political ideology, and not even SPLC says it is! By your logic their ideology would also be "anti-authority" since they encourage violence against cops! Pincrete (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete In the Nazi Party template, antisemitism is not there because it was discussed to include only "Nazism" because it is redundant. Nazism is explicitly an antisemitic ideology; black separatism is not necessarily so. Therefore, antisemitism should be included in the template, as already done in other Wikipedia articles. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between something being an antisemitic/racist/sexist/homophobic ideology and antisemitism/racism/sexism/homophobia being the ideology. Many nationalist European partoes are commonly described as xenophobic/anti-immigant/anti-EU/racist/Islamaphobic etc, but their ideologies are listed as French/British nationalism etc and their policies as immigration control/withdrawal from EU etc. What does it mean when one describes an antipathy as an ideology - "we believe in hating Jews/women/gays?". The underlying racial ideology iro Nazism would be something like a belief in the innate superiority of their ethnic group. Not everything needs to go in the infobox and it alters the ideology parameter to simply being "Characteristics". Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete You clearly only have problems with "antisemitism" in this Wikipedia article; I'm not aware of you disputing anything in the other Wikipedia articles.

I don't understand why in all the other American groups that have "antisemitism" you haven't challenged anything in the talk. So your reasons do not seem convincing. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I 'watch' a very small number of US political/religious organisation articles. There is no consistent logic to my choice, a few are 'black' organisations and one is a very respectable - mainly white - conservative group. I have a low opinion of most of these groups, but I believe even contemptible orgs should be covered on WP in a neutral fashion. 'Attack articles' may make some editors feel good, but they don't benefit the reader. The reasons for watching these articles follow no pattern, sometimes I was summoned by an RfC and just carried on watching. Recently I fought - and lost- an RfC at the Nation of Islam because I thought that SPLC's and other criticisms of NoI's leaders using "anti-semitic rhetoric" and holding homophobic views was insufficiently prominent - I thought it should be second para, not final para in the lead. More often though I am preserving neutrality on these articles by removing 'hate group' or 'anti-semetic' from the opening sentence, because the general rule of thumb on WP is that SPLC's opinions of an org are always included, but always attributed ie SPLC's evaluation of any org is to be respected but is NOT in itself a fact, and certainly not the key fact.

So, I find your last remarks cheap, fairly offensive and lazy - not based on any overall evaluation of my actions or views. I have never edited KKK, and only twice visited that page, because I suspect there are 100s of people who know more about it than me - and are more interested, ditto the other orgs, many of which I've never heard of. If I were asked, I would say that 'white supremacism' (or some such) was probably KKK's racial ideology, not "antisemitism", which is actually one manifestation of 'white supremacism'. You can believe me or not, but impugning my motives is offensive.

I was actually about to post to point out that "SPLC's evaluation of any org is to be respected but is NOT in itself a fact" and is thus always attributed to SPLC. One of the problems on this article is that NBPP is so fringe-y that almost nothing is written about it by neutral sources Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete I didn't write Wikipedia's policies. This kind of discussion should be done by opening a thread for all Wikipedia articles on the relevant project pages (e.g., politics).

What I see is that a significant number of Wikipedia articles, about active antisemitic organizations, have "antisemitism" as an ideology, and ADL and SPLC are considered reliable sources in the dedicated list: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

I also remind you that WP:BIASED is different from WP:INDEPENDENT.

Another thing that is not clear is why the militant organization template was not used, as is customary.

See "largest organized anti-Semitic and racist Black militant group in America"

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/report-new-black-panther-party-self-defense-nbpp 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Point me in the direction of the policy that explicitly supports the insertion. All the articles in which I'm involved attribute SPLC's judgement - and I remembothers accuse er an RfC where that was established as a principle, maybe 4 or 5 years ago. A significant number of Wikipedia articles, about active antisemitic organizations, have "antisemitism" as an ideology is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS non-argument, there are some very poor articles on fringe groups. Shall I produce a list of SPLC 'hate groups' - or other anti-semetic orgs - which don't. Also perhaps orgs that SPLC says are 'homophobic' which don't have 'homophobia' as their ideology. Why? Because a hatred or prejudice might be the result of an ideology, like KKK, but the hatred isn't itself an ideology. SPLC is a reliable source for for its own judgements and neutral historical facts, but its opinions are always attributed AFAIK. The statement "we believe in hating Jews and blaming them for the sins of the world" barely makes sense and 'core beliefs' is what 'ideology' means. Pincrete (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) ps Stop trying to prove that NBPP are widely condemned as 'antisemitic' - I have never doubted that, so it's a waste of both of our times. By the way, the sourcing is 10 years out of date. I believe NBPP has shrunk since then. Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete

Provide reliable sources (written by experts in their area of expertise) for the claim that political antisemitism is not an ideology. For now, the discussion remains WP:OR.

Antisemitism meaning according to Developing Anti-Racist Practices in the Helping Professions: Inclusive Theory, Pedagogy, and Application (2022), p.518

"Antisemitism is an ideology; it is a framework for how one can see the world." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

So point me to where SPLC says that the ideology of NBBP is anti-semitism (not that the org is widely held to be anti-semetic, which we all agree about) then to where WP policy says that SPLC claims need not be attributed - clue, neither place exists. No org, even one with the standing of SPLC gets a free pass for anything it writes to be treated as fact on WP, their views are always attributed, which apart from any neutrality issues, gives one the opportunity to be more specific about what about the org has attracted criticism - not simply labelling. Explicit independent sources are required for inclusion, not for exclusion. The text and categories are both explicit about what SPLC and others say about NBBP, so what is the issue with the infobox?. I have no idea what the militant org template is or why it has not been used. Please don't 'ping' me every time, there is no need as I watch the page. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete The SPLC categorizes antisemitism as an ideology: https://www.splcenter.org/search?keyword=antisemitism

SPLC also classifies the New Black Panther Party as antisemitic:

"The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and antisemitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/new-black-panther-party

I can conclude from this that antisemitism should be included as an ideology in the template.

There is no reason to believe that the organization is not antisemitic, nor is there a reliable source that says otherwise.

If you really want you can put "alleged" in the template. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The only policy matter that concerns me is that ALL SPLC views are always attributed (which is why ADF article says "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designates ADF as an anti-LGBT hate group" Not that "ADF IS a homophobic/transphobic hate group" - certainly not that "ADF's ideology is homophobia/ transphobia". It's why the Nation of Islam is criticised in the way that it is, not simply by putting NoI's beliefs as "antisemitism". What we record there is more complete and more nuanced, but any reader prepared to read beyond the infobox could be in no doubt that SPLC (and some others) think that some NoI leaders have expressed some repellant views.

My personal opinion is that putting prejudices and hatreds as ideologies is not only logical nonsense, it also simply attaches a 'bad people' 'label', but does not inform much about what the org has done to deserve the label, but my opinion is not policy. Of course I don't want to put 'alleged'. Apart from anything else, that word should probably never be used in an infobox. Nuance is for the text, not the infobox.

Very few sources appear to have written anything AT ALL about NBPP - that means that we TOO can only say a limited amount, not that we treat the few sources we do have any differently than we would on other articles. On every other occaion I know of, we attribute SPLC's accusations - which can't be done in an infobox without being very clumsy.

"Please don't 'ping' me every time, there is no need as I watch the page" actually means "Please don't 'ping' me every time, there is no need as I watch the page"! Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete There is no reason to believe that for this specific group this label is not true. If you have sources from other centers that study political extremism and classify the group in other ways please include them.

For now, it's clear that the ADL, SPLC and CCR classify the group as antisemitic. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I don't ping you on purpose, I just forget. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that for this specific group this label is not true, I agree. I certainly think that SPLC's criticism's are valid and I wouldn't want for one second to downplay that SPLC (and others) have said they are anti-semetic, anti-white and anti-cop. Original Panthers are also highly critical of them and I have no reason to doubt any of that. But if we attribute SPLC's views, which we always do, we don't vary that simply because there aren't other sources or because we personally agree about these people being pretty vile and there being no sources that say otherwise.

We can validly disagree about whether an antipathy can be an ideology - about which I have to say the SPLC's single word comment is about as simplistic as it is possible to get - the single word antisemitism-ideology! If they even gave a sentence defining what they think that ideology is, it might make more sense.

What is implicitly being asked is what the purpose of the ideology parameter is. I would argue that its purpose is to put the key beliefs of a political group - as defined by neutral sources. With fringe, or extremist groups, that isn't always easy. In NBPP's case, they don't seem to have many (recorded, coherent), key beliefs, but that isn't IMO the place to put criticisms of them. The example I have given is that there are numerous - mostly right-wing - European nationalist groups. They tend toward zenophobia and Islamophobia and some toward homophobia, these qualities are widely noted in sources. Even so, I know of none in which these prejudices are listed as ideologies in the infobox, though many have the criticisms recorded prominently in the text. Pincrete (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there is little involvement in the discussion, so I would wait for a third party between us, but I think not putting "antisemitism" in ideology is doing the group a favor, ergo a sort of privilege. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Pincrete above. We attribute statements of SPLC to them. It's certainly due mention within the article. No question of that. But to add "antisemitism" to the ideology infobox would imply both that we take the SPLC criticism as bald fact and that this antisemitism is central to the group identity of the NBPP. I don't think either of these assertions have been established as fact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I wish to emphasise that this is not out of any wish to downplay the various criticisms of NBPP, including/particularly antisemitism - they are rightly given prominence in para 2 and in categories - but not everything belongs in the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Like I said, certainly due mention - just not in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)