User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

African American culture

Touchy, touchy. Yep, I misread the passage -- no doubt -- but my edit note was far from uncivil. Chill. deeceevoice 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're still at it, huh? Too much coffee? lol If an article needs work, it needs work. Such a comment may not have anything to do with the quality of the work already done. It may refer to an absence of information or the need for a broader scope. And expressing the hope that black editors will come on board also is not a commentary on who may (or may not have) contributed before. Take a chill pill. Otherwise, don't bother to post to my talk page. I really don't have time for this silliness. deeceevoice 21:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm sorry for my bad faith suggestion about adding up the years an diving his adult life by that number for the amount of weight in a recent discussion with you. If I knew how to strike through them with out erasing them , I'd do it. The only reason I wouldn't want them completely reworked would be so as not to deprive anyone of contextual information for the conversation. I really appreciate you comment on my talk page. As soon as this semester is over, I'll read all the tutorials and practice in the sandboxes. I can't type, so everything you see is the product of a Herculean effort. I really learned a lot from you over the course of that conversation, and realize there is a lot more to learn .Thanks again.Die4Dixie 07:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Judaism

Whatever you say. I was MUCH more interested in the edit itself and its significance than whether or not I checked the 'minor' box, for which I (basically) didn't pay any attention to whatsoever. Forgive my enthusiasm. A Sniper 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More Thanks

Thank you for you words of personal support(And I recognize them not as an edorsement of the name) on that discussion page. i'm incredulous that a person can report my name, and then freely admit that it doesn't violate the policy and it not be germane to the conversation about the name. I really think I'm going to break for a while here and go to the Spanish Wiki( I'm very fluent)and see if I can make some useful contribution there.Thanks for all ive learned from you, and I'm much the richer for my interaction with both you and JoshDie4Dixie 03:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

About Drapetomania

While I appreciate the work you're doing, I don't appreciate having added a reference that only ended up being deleted. It is indeed a psychiatric diagnosis, as psychiatry is a branch of medicine (modern psychiatry came about in the early 19th Century, but still existed before then). I think you are trying to appease Mattisse without doing enough research first. Don't feel pressured to take care of this as there are plenty of other users who are willing to work on it, including myself. - Cyborg Ninja 05:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made an RfC for Mattisse. If you agree with it, you can include yourself as one of the people who tried to settle the argument with him to no avail. It's your choice though. If you don't, the RfC closes in about a day and a half. You're mentioned already but I've listed it as so far one person's complaint. I wasn't planning on doing this, but he went as far as threatening to have me blocked for personal attacks and continued to make poor edits on drapetomania. - Cyborg Ninja 23:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems the RfC was useless. I'd talk more if we had some kind of way to speak to each other privately. But anyway, it's incredible that I have been so incredibly civil here at Wikipedia, only to have a few... people... ignore that and say that I am a bad user. It's totally outrageous, but I'm not new to injustice. - Cyborg Ninja 16:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG!

I've been trying to get a Wikipedia account for ages so that I could contact you, Malik. (I was collateral in a massive IP range block)

Anyway I discovered today that my appeal was successful so the first thing I do is come here....why? cos I noticed that not only is malcolm x your hero (duh), you also believe in anarchy. I share these beliefs. First I'd love it if you took a look at my Youtube tribute to brother Malcolm, which one enthuasiastic user has called "the best tribute on youtube" lol

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8zwLERNAJWE

Then I'd love to hear from you your beliefs on anarchy - I moved into the belief partially due to the works of Alan Moore. However my feelings on the subject are based merely on principles and I don't have the ideas to back up my argument... AYBGerrardo 16:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Haaretz is not a moderate newspaper

Seriously, do you read Haaretz? Its left-wing views consistently appear in its articles and editorials. Likewise, much of its editorial staff is openly leftist. The best example is Danny Rubinstein, who publicly acknowledged the newspaper's left-wing views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion page on the Crown Heights riot

You claim to be dedicated to a neutral view, yet you delete cited material, add uncited material, delete citations that you have not bothered to look up, etc. We called that hacking. Material added by 6millionmore was racist, and he should be banned from editing. Thank you for deleting his material.Edstat 02:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Crew page under threat of deletion

I have appreciated reading your measured, neutral comments, in the midst of contentious topics and edits. They are indeed quite an inspiration.

In a highly partisan move, an editor tagged the biography article on Dr. Rudolph Crew, an education chancellor under NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, the longest tenure chancellor of education (NYC) in recent memory prior to Joe Klein, for speedy deletion. Crew gets 209,000 hits in a yahoo search. Given that Crew has indeed been quite notable. I consider the moves by the editors to be highly partisan.

Please weigh in with your support. Thanks. Dogru144 02:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on avoiding "Help defend". I'll incorporate your suggestion. Dogru144 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag still at his popular name

As you said, more people know him as "Rudy," even though Dr. Rudolph is more proper. I concur with your proposal to revert to the original name.

However, now that the Rudolph Crew site is no long AfD --a quite welcome event-- why is the actual "Rudy Crew" wikipedia page, [1], still AfD tagged? Cheers Dogru144 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

I have run into a similar problem when realizing, after writing a bio, that I have not used the consensus name.

I suppose in this instance, the AfD tag could get removed. And all of the material from the Rudolph site could get cut and pasted over to the Rudy site. But, then your method would work too. Cheers Dogru144 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kitson

I think it's a classic A7, and got rid of it. That title does not ipso facto make someone notable. Now, if he were Prince Charles, heir to the throne of England, that may be another story. -- Avi 01:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

History as vandalism?

We both know that very few, a very small percentage of slaves were Muslim....and that the majority of those who captured Sub-Shahran Africans for the slave trade WERE Muslims. But dont worry, I'll play along with your little ignorance as history game and leave the entry alone, Muslims have as much right to make stuff up as Christians do....besides, I have my hands full with yuppie vandals trying to re-write the history of Los Angeles on Wikpedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garagehero (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Garagehero 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed; no worry

Yes, it looks great. It looks fine. And I found his birthdate, courtesy of a Miami paper. Dogru144 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights riot

Got your note. If you can make a convincing case that Edstat is violating policies such as OWN, you could post it for admin attention at WP:ANI. Good luck on this. --Leatherstocking 20:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want in on this

Got a user trying to move Black Loyalist to African American Loyalists. Since you brought it up first on the article's talk page I thought I'd give you the chance to get involved. I've asked him to provide sources to prove his point. CJ 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

Ok so you don't agree they were African Americans? Then what were theyn then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Black loyalists

True, true in that case you are right, I never said African American Loyalists was the more 'common term' I only said it was the more accurate description of slaves who considered themselves American and who used dollars and cents in Freetown, Sierra Leone, and who also spoke Gullah, Creole, and African American Vernacular English. Scholars are now beginning to use this term more frequently, realizing the slaves only fought for the British in order to gain freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights

I think you should consider putting up a formal request for mediation. This guy is completely out of control and he's probably violating WP:OWN as well. I just don't think getting more people involved is going to do it. CJ 11:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! futurebird 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights

It's really annoying when you have an editor who's hell-bent on pushing a POV as is the case with this article. I just wanted to say "hang in there" I think that the best way to improve the article is to start adding sourced content to make it more balanced. (And take CJ's advice!)

I also think that there is one book that is used as a source way too often-- (I've never seen footnotes go beyond z before...) that is giving that source "undue weight" especially if you can find any neutral sources (perhaps a newspaper review) that say that source isn't balanced. Of course, views from every source should be included, but it looks like a lot of this article is just based on just one book... perhaps a book with a strong POV.

I don't know much about the Crown Heights riot, but I live in NYC and I have NEVER heard anyone (be they Jewish, Black, whatever) talk about it the way this article does. (!) I'll try to help when I can, but until I have the time to do some reading of my own, this advice is all that I can offer. futurebird 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the 3rd draft has been posted in the Crown Heights mediation.

--Leonmon (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Racism topics

He's baaack. I'm technicially in violation of 3RR for reverting his unsourced additions so I'm not going to push it by reverting the last one. But I have put him on notice at WP:ANI. CJ 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your response. BTW, a 3RR warning isn't necessary since he's already had one. He removed it from his talk page. Everything you need is in the 3RR report I made the other day. CJ 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion

Hi : Your input would be greatly appreciated at the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion. Thanks a lot, IZAK 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

One Drop Rule

How are you going to completely remove something that is TRUE and is the result of the one drop rule that affects African Americans. The book is not self written. However, I'm willing receive any help in retrieving more reliable sources since that seems to be your argument even though my information is from reliable articles and newspapers. I'll also change the title to something else they may be more to the point. Please respond back. Mcelite 16:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Your edit to Stereotypes of blacks

Thanks, I missed that one... and it was BAD too! futurebird 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so sorry My little brother was playing on wikipedia he changed a bunch of stuff and made a rude comment about MLK I thought i deleted it but obiously i didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.61.212 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jencass

In the spirit of WP:BITE, would you mind if I asked you to remove your comment at User talk:Jencass? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still copyvio, unless you've gotten confirmation that User:Jencass is who she says she is. Just a post isn't sufficient. Also note that this article has been recreated after removal at least once. But I will reconsider the wording. Michaelbusch 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm curious, how can you tell that an article has been recreated? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Admins have access to deletion histories for pages, but in this case we also have the warning left on the User talk:Jencass by User:Moonriddengirl, who deleted the article "Jen Cass" on grounds of blatant copyright infringement. Michaelbusch 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Progressive/Reform

Thanks for the moral support - you might also want to pass that support onto User:A Sniper and User:Jheald.

I noticed that you have an ongoing interest in bias issues on Wikipedia and probably a lot of practical experience as well out in the real world. I'd very much like your thoughts on how to deal with these matters. Claiming bias and inviting in a wider audience (things that must be done to deal with bias) tend to be loaded and come across negatively. I feel I am constantly treading a thin line between confrontation and kindness.

BTW, I put a response to your comments on the systemic bias page. Egfrank 09:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much Malik Shabazz for your words of encouragement which I found helpful and supportive. I will certainly hang in there and not be dissuaded by those who would trivialize theologians and beliefs dear to me, especially when I have never made light of Orthodox Jewry (and would personally be offended if anyone did). Sadly, when it comes to some of the traditionalists, Reform Judaism is nothing to defend. I would encourage you to take part in our project, even if Progressive Judaism isn't that familiar to you. All the best & thanks again... A Sniper 21:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I second that Egfrank 21:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Unjust use of personal criticisms

Regarding your comments at User talk:Egfrank#Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias and at User talk:A Sniper#IZAK and Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias, may I say a few words in my own defense? (a) At the outset I am really disappointed to read your comments as I have until now had great respect for you and your work on Wikipedia. (b) Malik, what you have done is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have never addressed any personal comments to you or to User A Sniper (talk · contribs) or to User Egfrank (talk · contribs) because that is beneath contempt and violates WP:CIVIL. (c) I have not made a single edit to the Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism articles at this time, so I do not know what you are carrying on about. (Unlike User:A Sniper and User:Egfrank who have recently made lots of controversial edits to Judaism articles that reveal their POV biases.) (d) I had some questions which I brought up on User:Egfrank's talk page and which were also brought up on the WP:JUDAISM talk page. During those talks, when the meanings and differences between Jewish denominations outlooks are/were discussed, all sorts of things are said. It is not false to say that both Reform and Progressive Judaism allow Jews the eating pork unlike Orthodox Judaism which forbids it based on the Torah. (e) If an editor were to state that Islam forbids pork but that lapsed Muslims do eat pork chops would that be a slander? Nope, it's statement of fact. (f) There is no "Orthodox bias" on Wikipedia, what a joke! Just go and read all the Biblical articles and see how many of them have Christian and modern critical views. So don't be funny please! (g) If you think or imagine that anything I stated about any subject in the body of any article violates WP:NPOV or WP:CITE rules then point it out and I will be glad to discuss it with you or with anyone else. But please don't go around making hateful and hurtful comments behind my back, right here out in the open, when all you do by that is reveal your own prejudices a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and probably even WP:LIBEL against me. Thanks for taking note. (h) If you honestly believe in "Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias" then take it up at some official forums and discussion groups such as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles and let Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism know about it, so that this percived bias can be corrected, if any such exists -- but do not make me into the straw man and fall guy of your mistaken beliefs and misconceptions -- it is intellectually dishonest and is not appreciated. (i) Malik, I hope you will apologize for fairness' sake. This message has been copied to User talk:A Sniper#Unjust use of personal criticisms; User talk:Egfrank#Unjust use of personal criticisms and [[]]. IZAK 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry IZAK, but anyone who insinuates that Reform Jews are lapsed Jews cannot be taken seriously as an editor of anything related to Progressive Judaism. Do you even recognize the biased things you write? I don't know whether you are an Orthodox Jew, and frankly I couldn't care less, but if you ARE then there is certainly an argument that could be made that thousands of years of being obsessed with rules, laws and rigidity has been at the expense of ethics. I consider this matter finished, as far as my talk page is concerned. I'm not continuing in any silly banter and I offer nobody any ill will. L'chaim, A Sniper 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A Sniper: Orthodox Judaism regards Reform Jews as "lapsed" Jews or worse because according to Orthodox Judaism they (the Reform and Progressives) reject the classical Shulkhan Arukh and the Halakha, that is not "my" view, see Who is a Jew? to understand that Orthodoxy does not accept any of Reform's converts and in cases where the child's father is Jewish but the mother is not, the children are not Jews according to Orthodox Judaism, and that is also not according to "me" or anyone else. If you missed that lesson somewhere then you fail to understand Orthodoxy. Lamentably you are again personalizing the discussions and the outlook of a movement with an editor's private life. Who we are as people does not count, what counts is the accuracy of our words as editors. I cannot remake Orthodoxy any more than you cannot remake Reform and Progressivism and what they stand for. It is sad that you wish to trivialize what I say by calling it "banter" and I look forward to the time when you will treat those views that differ from yours with respect and seriousness. IZAK 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MLK

I just wanted to say I really like the photos on your user page. Spent a moment today looking at them, and thinking about their courage. Thanks, Egfrank 10:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Elaine Bloom

Just to let you know, she is also a politician from Florida, so she may be somewhat more notable than any plain old alumna. See "said Elaine Bloom, a Barnard graduate and former Democratic member of the Florida House of Representatives" and http://www.elainebloom.com/about.html. -- Avi 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that her opinion is as relevant to the case for or against tenure as those of academics and scholars in her field, and I'm not necessarily going to restore it, but I think its one of those borderline cases in that it can demonstrate the extent to which the tenure controversy has spread in as much as a public person has taken such a stand. Just wanted to comment on the matter; I think it can go either way. Thanks. -- Avi 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your help

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/31 The african-diaspora stubs categories are up for deletion. CJ 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

IP block

Hello, Malik.

The IP 66.167.144.6 is a dynamic IP registered to Covad, so it has been used my many, many people. One person was running an open proxy, using Tor, which is forbidden by the wikimedia foundation, therefore it was hard blocked (the name of the server was "phrenograph". Currently, the IP is not running a Tor server, which stands to reason, as you were assigned that IP after the IP was blocked on wiki, so it has been unblocked. -- Avi 20:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CNN and the ADL do

Antisemitism is racism when directed at Jews as a people; this is established on Wikipedia. CNN has always maintained that these Brown pride groups are racist. That you do not, even though they do, is evidence of your partiality and susceptability to their racism. I don't have Stockholm syndrome, so I will not allow you to decide all that happens with it. Savignac 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Savignac

I made a 3rr report here on this user. It may be best to wait until he is blocked before reverting him again. Just so we don't cross the 3rr. Yahel Guhan 06:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of P-Funk projects

If I had to choose between deleting it or keeping it as it is I would lean towards keeping it as it is; however, your idea of keeping it but pruning out session work would be an improvement over its present state in my opinion. InnocuousPseudonym 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EJ220

Since you have encountered this user, your input would be helpful here.--Southern Texas 19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth

I have noticed that we both seem to have an interest in this great lady. I feel her article does not even come close to paying her tribute, so I think the few quotes that are in the article are extremely profound and important. I understand that block quotation is used. (I was under the impression that block quotation is used to indicate the quotation of a large section of text, so I don't know why it was used here.) The quotation marks helped to emphasize those short quotes, now that you have removed them they are barely distinguishable. Earlier when I tried to use a different typeface, but that was also removed. Why would we not want them highlighted in someway? Is there another way we can make them stand out? Also, it has been suggested that her entire speech, Ain't I A Woman, should not be in the article. The speech is on Wikisource. Probably the speech made by Francis Gage should not be there either, maybe just a line or two. I am interested in your opinion. Thank you. - Epousesquecido 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly and for your changes to her article. - Epousesquecido 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Interest in Helping fight Antisemitism

(Jbabrams2 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)) I was wondering why it is considered out of line for me to post a link to www.JewStrong.org when I have only posted the link in areas where the visitor would find it useful...I think that there is some sort of bias going on here...I should be allowed to post a link to a useful website under "external links".

Can someone help me with this issue I am having? I think some one is cheating me for some reason.

Please read Wikipedia:External links. External links are supposed to link to pages with "meaningful, relevant content".
As I explained at Talk:Hebrew language#Why can't I add my link?, JewStrong.org doesn't contain any meaningful, relevant content. Instead, it's a collection of links to other pages. If you wish to add a link to Hebrew language, it needs to be a link to a page about the Hebrew language. Likewise, an external link at Moses should link to a page about Moses.
A link to a page with dozens of links to The New York Times, the BBC, YouTube, and other websites — but with no meaningful, relevant content of its own — is not considered an appropriate external link. It has no links that are even remotely relevant to most of the articles to which you inserted it (Gaza Strip? Kingdom of Israel? Deuteronomy? Religion? The Jewish Agency?).
Finally, your suggestion that the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines represents "some sort of bias" is ridiculous. You were warned repeatedly that your link was inappropriate, but you continued to insert it — in some cases reversing the editors who had warned you that the link was inappropriate. It is not antisemitism or any other bias that has resulted in your block, it was your behavior, including your unwillingness to heed the warnings of other editors and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Du Bois

Hi Malik,

Since Du Bois said that his name sounded like 'voice', I tagged your 'boys' pronunciation with a fact check. I've only ever heard it as 'boys', but we should be able to verify it. kwami 12:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Du Bois didn't say that, he said 'Bois, as oi in voice'. Timeineurope 12:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Which does not decide the issue, but is suggestive of /s/, and other editors have claimed sources with /s/. kwami 19:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You said Du Bois said that his name sounded like 'voice'. That's not true, so I pointed that out. Timeineurope 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

I am not sure what mistake I made but I do not understand what you want me to classify the Black Loyalists as. They were not 'Africans' as the majority of them were born in the United States. They were not really 'Nova Scotians' as they were not born there either, but they can be referred to as such in the case of Sierra Leone where they were called 'Nova Scotians'. I am sorry Malik but I am confused by what the editors on wikipedia want me to state; they do not want me to call Black Loyalist African Americans yet they call a prominent Black Loyalist Thomas Peters an African American when he was not even born on U.S. soil? Please help me understand the inconsistencies of editing wikipedia as I am not accustomed to this type of questioning over a simple edit backed by fact.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proceeding with Great Caution!

Hello, Brother Shabazz!

It's very nice to make your acquaintance via Wikipedia. Thank you for your pointers and your recommendations regarding the documentation of my own personal history. Please believe me when I tell you; I'm trying very hard to be neutral. I want everything on my webpage to be absolutely accurate. I can tell you everything I have documented thus far I have triple-checked. You have to admit; using the user name "Ronsax" while having "Ron " as my first name combined with being a saxophone player isn't exactly a brilliant way to cloak my identity. I realized my identity would be very obvious when I began the article but I am not afraid of that because I intend to document only the facts- only what I know to be true and verifiable. My career has been very well documented so all of the things I've written are pretty easy to prove. I've recently listed several historic references and I am not finished listing them. I realize conversations I had with Dizzy Gillespie are not provable but even those things are widely documented and common knowledge among individuals who know me well. One such person is Sonny Rollins. I have told Sonny about every major occurance in my career since 1975. However, I don't think anyone will have any problems with anything I've written. There are a multitude of articles, reviews, photos and recordings to back up anything I've written. Please let me know if you think I've said anything improper or unprovable. I will always consider anything you submit to me very carefully. I'm very dedicated to only recording the truth.

Yours, with great respect

Ronsax

Ronsax 02:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

African American neighborhoods

Can you take a look at this and give me some feedback? Thanks! futurebird (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalist

I have provided a number of sources that show Black Loyalists were African Americans but each time they have been called 'disruptive editing' and have been removed. As for your claim they were not African Americans because they were born before the United States was founded is unfounded..by the same token George Washington was not an American since he was born before the United States was founded? Historians have found it hard to categorize Black Loyalists technically, but there is now an agreement that they were Black Americans who simply fought for the British for in return for freedom and not because they were monarchists. Contemporary books such as 'Rough Crossings' by Schimon Schama and 'Epic Journeys of Freedom: Runaway Slaves of the American Revolution and Their Global Quest for Liberty' by Cassandra Pybus. Even the Nova Scotia Archives even refer to Black Loyalists as African Americans http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/africanns/ch2.asp?Language=English and even the National Archives refer to Black Loyalists as African Americans http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/work_community/loyalists.htm (this may not be enough references for you). Either way Malik I understand your argument in saying that Black Loyalists were not African Americans (by the virtue) of them being loyalists but this argument can only be used for free Loyalists who made the choice to fight for the British with nothing in return. I will stop editing the article, though I will ask that the Black Loyalists stop being referred to as 'Africans' which they were not.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you need more proof on Black Loyalists being from the States

http://christianparty.net/tj.htm

"I proposed to him the establishment of Sierra Leone, to which a private company in England had already colonized a number of negroes, and particularly the fugitives from these States during the Revolutionary War; and at the same time suggested, if this could not be obtained, some of the Portuguese possessions in South America, as next most desirable. The subsequent Legislature approving these ideas, I wrote, the ensuing year, 1802, to Mr. King, our Minister in London, to endeavor to negotiate with the Sierra Leone company a reception of such of these people as might be colonized thither."

- Thomas Jefferson

In this letter Jefferson refers to the fugitives from the United States, if they were not Americans they would not have been considered traitors or fugitives which they were considered as historical documents imply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Brother Malcolm

I am currently trying to assess what Malcolm's greatest contribution was... James H. Cone says it was how he almost single-handedly brought about black pride and how he brought internationalism. Other sources say it was how he inspired the black power movement What do you think, Malik? --AYBGerrardo (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for listening and understanding my argument, I was not merely trying to argue with you on the point but was trying to point out that some of my edits were justified, though I was not trying to be disruptive in any way. I believe also that truely slaves in America were not considered Americans but rather as 'Africans'. My point in calling Black Loyalists African Americans was not to show that they were considered 'Americans' but was to show that they were of the same of ethnicity as the people group who are African Americans. They were not Black Nova Scotians as many like to say..there was really no such thing in that time period. I have been merely trying to show that they were no different from Crispus Attacks or Paul Cuffe or Sally Hemingway, they had grown up in the same culture as other slaves and were no different. Also I think the point of them fighting for the British has been portrayed as them being monarchists. This is unfounded as the Black Loyalists only joined the British ranks when they heard they would be free and not when the war initially started. Anyway my point was not to argue with you and I agree that back then slaves would not have been considered 'African Americans'. At the same time I was trying to point out merely that Black Loyalists were of the cultural hegemony as other slaves in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

Thank you for listening and understanding my argument, I was not merely trying to argue with you on the point but was trying to point out that some of my edits were justified, though I was not trying to be disruptive in any way. I believe also that truely slaves in America were not considered Americans but rather as 'Africans'. My point in calling Black Loyalists African Americans was not to show that they were considered 'Americans' but was to show that they were of the same of ethnicity as the people group who are African Americans.If slaves in America were called 'African Negroes' then I would have called Black Loyalists 'African negroes' to show they are the same as African Americans. They were not Black Nova Scotians as many like to say..there was really no such thing in that time period. I have been merely trying to show that they were no different from Crispus Attacks or Paul Cuffe or Sally Hemingway, they had grown up in the same culture as other slaves and were no different. Also I think the point of them fighting for the British has been portrayed as them being monarchists. This is unfounded as the Black Loyalists only joined the British ranks when they heard they would be free and not when the war initially started. Anyway my point was not to argue with you and I agree that back then slaves would not have been considered 'African Americans'. At the same time I was trying to point out merely that Black Loyalists were of the cultural hegemony as other slaves in America, they were no differen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalist

Yes I hope we can work together..your complaints were founded and justified since you were trying to protect the integrity of wikipedia. I misunderstood when you said they were not African Americans and I should have look closer at the context of which you were speaking.

Thank you for understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)