This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the country of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Trinidad and TobagoWikipedia:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTemplate:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTrinidad and Tobago
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Southern Democrats#American Civil War and post-Reconstruction|Democratic Party]] The anchor (#American Civil War and post-Reconstruction) has been deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Not sure if this belongs in the article, but Mad magazine #111 June 1967 did a full-length parody of Porgy and Bess called "Stokely and Tess," commenting on then current African American politics and including a song "It Ain't Necessarily Stoke" in which a more moderate African American states rejects Carmichael's "Black Power" views. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This Mad parody was recently discussed at some length by Gerald Early (The Great Black Hope, The Nation, posted March 9, 2006; March 27, 2006 issue). Early mentions something I'd forgotten: that this was part of Mad's "Special Racial Issue." He remarks, among other things, "It was probably the first time in American history when the political divisions among blacks mattered to whites… "Stokely and Tess" also marked the end of an era, in the sense that the assassination of King the following April made it virtually impossible for anyone to treat the movement or King with such gleeful irreverence."
Anyway, I'm not sure the article on Carmichael is where any of this belongs, but I think it belongs in Wikipedia somewhere. Maybe just the article on Mad? I'm very open to suggestions, but if none are forthcoming, I guess that is where I'll put it. - Jmabel | Talk03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(this section was copied from Talk:Russell Tribunal to here for further discussion)
Hi! Just wanted to say this is a very well written piece. The work is elaborate, precise, and stays neutral with no bias. The references are from neutral sources which is always great! KyraWilson (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has a wiki-article about him? Sounds notable to me. Your point is...? -Rob 03:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should I take your silence as an indication that you had no point to make with the above comment? -Rob 09:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Its not for me to comment or make judgement; it's my job to make available to the serious student of history the fact that Stokely Carmichael referred to the Secretary of Defense as "that honkyMcNamara" at time when he was sitting as a Judge over the United States Army as listed in item 2, or perhaps examine his judicial temperment by reading the entire transcript. Being new to wiki I can only imagine what judgement the wikigods would bring upon a User who spoke about another user that way.nobs
It's not for you to comment or make judgement, yet you go on to do just that? Heh, that's an interesting disclaimer. This may come as news to you, but McNamara was indeed a honky. All of the white people referred to 42 times in that speech as honkies were indeed just that. But any serious student of history would already know that. As for Charmichael ever being a judge, it appears you may be experiencing source confusion again. Charmical never sat on the bench of any judiciary system, as far as I am aware - but he was Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Committee. You lost me with your references to "wikigods" and speaking "that way." -Rob 02:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Carmichaels racist intonations I leave others to judge. Wiki may say honky doesn't have the same implication other words have but I'm sure other people may dispute that. Stokley Carmichael as I remember him and the transcript suggests is more of a stand up comedian. And to think history remembers him as an American participant in an International War Crimes Iribunal like Robert Jackson. I guess this is why history is so fascinating.Nobs 04:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Charmichaels racist intonations? Care to cite some of them? Perhaps you meant accusations of racism, which he intones repeatedly in the speech you cite. While you are at it, can you pinpoint exactly what in that transcript suggests to you that Charmichael is a stand-up comedian? Your response to these two questions should prove quite revealing. -Rob 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can see you don't intend to answer these two questions. Your silence is answer enough for me. I'll be copying your comments to the more appropriate Carmichael article talk page for further discussion. -Rob 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note on the above Personal References: There is a difference between (1) a judgement (2) analysis (3) opinion. I believe in this entire discussion I have always maintained a seperation between all, and have never offerred any personal points of view unless requested to do so. As for Stokely Carmicheal I beleive I was being generous after rereading the transcripts, as does very much sound like a Nite at the Improv, and kind when one considers he was being accused of treason in 1967. Nobs02:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Somwhere I read that wiki had enough technical contributors and now it is being expanded into the humanities; perhaps technical contributors when engaging in debate and discussion of matters outside their fields need to learn some of the basics of discourse. Nobs02:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for you to cite these "racist intonations]." I'm also still waiting for you to cite exactly what in that transcript suggests "comedy" to you. I predict I'll be waiting a long time. I keep asking, and you keep avoiding. Heh, talk about the need to learn some of the basics of discourse. -Rob 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
From The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of New Mexico. 1 May 2005 I'ntonation also has the important function of conveying attitude.'[1]Nobs20:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting, Nobs. Cite away any time you feel up to it. -Rob 04:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't follow this conversation. Whether Carmichael/Ture was a racist or not has little bearing on whether he should have an article. As for treason, Americans seem to always call anti-war protestors "traitors". It's par for the course. Without some actual documentation (say, a conviction, or at least a scholarly article) there is no place for that in the article. If you can find a source saying he was called a traitor, you can always include it as an allegation. As for wanting to whitewash the word "honky" out of the article, just have a look at what links to nigger (or if you are concerned about offensive language in general, check out the truly remarkable article on fuck). Guettarda16:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of the conversation - Nobs claims "racist intonations," yet he refuses to cite just one. Nobs claims something in Carmichael's speech is akin to stand-up comedy, yet he is afraid to cite what that might be. No concerns about offensive language here, thanks. -Rob 04:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Having heard Carmichael speak several times, yes, he certainly at times used the techniques of a stand-up comedian (among other things, he was an excellent mimic). And of a preacher (a career he once was headed for). And a schoolteacher. He was an excellent public speaker. I don't think it's a put-down at all to say that he had the skills of a stand-up comic. So, for that matter, did JFK. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel, let's not sidetrack the actual issue with a disingenuous reading of Nobs comments. Nobs has not commented on speaking style, skills or techniques, at times or otherwise. Nobs linked a particular speech Carmichael made about racism -- Nobs then suggested Carmichael was a racist and the message of his speech was comical. I'm sure Nobs will be happy to elaborate if he meant otherwise. -Rob 17:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Truth to tell, I'd only skimmed the thread. I was just pointing out that if, in a given speech, Carmichael came off like a comedian, he doubtless knew exactly what he was doing. And the use of comic modes is no reason not to take ideas seriously: look at Plautus, Jonathan Swift, or Lenny Bruce. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I am offerring no opinion on the subject other than making the transcript available and questioning what, by any standard, qualifies him to be a voting member on the International War Crimes Tribunal, specifically, does he have the judicial temperment that would be required to stand in judgement even in a traffic court. Further, "that honky McNamara" is directed at an individual to whom one might consider may have some personal responsibility in the conduct of the Vietnam War. And the parallel is obvious with the selection of the name "International War Crimes Tribunal". By contrast, one can imagine Mr. Justice Robert Jackson speaking before Nuremberg of "that honky Goering". Would this be condsidered prejudicial? I never heard Carmichael speak but I did personnally hear American citizens (contemporaneously, meaning in 1967) state he should be tried has a traitor. Not saying its my opinion, I am just a chronicler of events. (One must keep in mind this is pre-Jane Fonda, before consorting with America's enemies became fasionable). (Incidentlally, I didn't know Beethoven was black or Napolean was step-father to a black child till Stokely Carmichale enlightened me; I am much more interested in the quality of his research than anything else. thx. Nobs01:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i.e.; No citations from Nobs. Hardly a surprise. -Rob 02:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you might have another go at reading the above. Hint: the relevant questions to you were long ago put in bold print for your benefit. -Rob 18:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Racist intonations: "that honkyMcNamara" plus numerous others (I didn't count but I assume maybe the 42 is about right; also it's likely such sentiments were expressed elsewhere outside this transcript); Nobs
"Such sentiments?" The sentiment was disparagement, not racism. With the 42 references to honkies in that speech, spoken in the vernacular of the day, and properly applied in each and every context, you can't call that "racist intonations." No more than I can call the use of the word 'nigger' by Guettarda in the paragraph above a racial intonation. I'm still waiting for these "racial intonations" of which you speak. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
How about this quip using racial sterotype: "white people believe they are gods....They think that everybody was put on this earth to benefit them.", does this include 500,000 honkies (yankees) that gave thier lives in the American Civil War? Nobs
Sorry, but I don't see that 'quip' anywhere in the speech. I do see this one, however:
We are so ashamed of ourselves that our kids won't even hold their heads up high. They learn to bow down before white folk by the time they are nine years old. And our parents call themselves Christians. Did they forget the first commandment? Though shalt have no other gods before me. They have taught us to bow down before white folk as if they were gods. And white people believe they are gods. And that has been the fault of black folk because we let them believe they were gods too. We let them play gods, but they don't understand that we telling them that play period is over and they better come on home. They think that everybody was put on this earth to benefit them. And they use us against each other.
Are you accusing Carmichael of stereotyping blacks in some way? How dare he cast blame on "black folk" in such stereotypical fashion like that. I'm still waiting for these racial intonations of which you speak. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
"they going to draft you all and send you to Vietnam; I guess you going to go over there and make love to the Vietnamese", sexual innuendo always good for a laugh. "Benny Goodman can not carry the empty trumpet case of Miles Davis?", it's the element of truth that is the essence of comedy. "Booker T. Washington...used his mouth to do two things: to eat and to say "Yes, sir." Lyndon Bird, Lady Bird, and Loony Bird! "Yeah! Sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me! Yeah!" right out of the TV series Laugh In. It's a rich text, there's numerous others. Nobs
Let's hear the "numerous others," because the ones you cite (when left in context) don't come close to stand-up comedy, as you suggest. In fact, you've listed some caustic sarcasm, some comparitive insults and a line from a TV show being used as punctuation. Most didn't (and weren't intended to) elicit laughter; not the mark of a stand-up comedian. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest that you are confusing well-known speech delivery methods (such as the use of levity and light-hearted references to maintain interest) with stand-up comedy. But I'm not willing to give you that benefit, in light of other comments previously made by you that betray your real sentiment. You suggested the message of Carmichael's speech was comical, and now you are back-peddling. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand, I am not on some mission to disparage the man. This quote is quite impressive for it's time: "The Nazi’s who were brought to trial after Hitler was—after the Hitler regime was brought down", showing a well studied student of events and current affairs; I'm impressed by his proper use of the term Hitler regime, and not impugning all of Germany as was (and still is) common. (Many raconteurs of current events today beleive the term 'regime' just came into popular use 2 or 3 years ago.) Also his detailed discussion of Truman's Executive Order integrating the troops is very interesting. Nobs19:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't on some mission to disparage the man? Of course you are. You've called him a racist; you've called his speech comical; and you've expressed disbelief that he could be chosen to sit on a panel of concerned humanitarians investigating war crimes in Vietnam during the war. Now that someone has called you to task on your views, and pushes you to explain them, you back-peddle. Recent compliments to the man not withstanding. -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I've presented the evidence. Perhaps you just lack a sense of humor to see the comedy in his delivery. Carmicheal certainly is an interesting historic figure (notable personage) I beleive is the term used. I would not consider him "humanitarian"; at best he needs some sensitivity training or perhaps anger management. Let's keep in mind what this discussion is, it demonstrates the judicial temperment of voting members of the Russell Tribunal making assessments or standing in judgement of war crimes committed in the Johnson era. Carmicheal and Lederer were only the first two I selected off the list of "members" and other participants. I just scratched the surface of the evidence presented in the wiki article. It gave all the conclusions I believe necessary to pass judgement on (1) the Russell Tribunals aims (2) its methods to achieve those aims. Comedian is certainly a better epitaph than traitor or demogogue which some may apply. He doesnt need me to disparage him, his own words and actions speak for themsleves. So you and I have a different view: I believe "honky" is a racist term, you take the wikitionary definition and water it down. Perhaps this discussion belongs on the Lani Guinier page where the view was expressed that black people were incapable of racism, and even if it could be proved aganist all nature that there were indeed racist blacks, it somehow was justifiable. Nobs02:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Edgar Lederer bio page needs to be done. He seems to be a very interesting person. If memory from 30 years ago serves me good he can be linked to developement of SovietWMD programs, a card carrying communist who likewise worked in fascist WMD programs. Fled the Soviet Union in 1938 for fear of the purges. Then worked in WMD programs in the Vichy regime, although he could have emigrated to Canada several times. He claims he was dismissed from 1941-43 because he was Jewish. All the source information I've found is in French and I dont claim any authority there. But there is other source material in English where his name is mentioned. Nobs03:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Let's keep in mind what this discussion is..." Yes, let's. This discussion is about your suggestion that Carmichael is a racist, and your failure to substantiate that suggestion; your assertion that the speech in question is comical, and your failure to justify that assertion; and your curious failure to understand that any living, breathing soul on this earth can cast judgements, and usually does. As for your two paragraphs of attempted diversion into a variety of other topics: I ain't biting. -Rob 04:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
[Re-setting the indent] With regards to whether you want to consider Carmichael racist you might want to look at the distinction Wikipedia makes between racist and racialist. Until I heard him speak in [?1996 or 1998] I would have assumed that he was something of a racist. Seeing a recording of him speaking in Trinidad, I was impressed. Rather than seeing everything in terms of race (as politics in Trinidad is usually phrased) he spoke about class. And yes, when he chose to be, he was quite funny. I was impressed by clarity and by an understanding you rarely see among people who left Trinidad as long ago as he did. I was impressed, despite the fact that I approached his talk without a very open mind. Guettarda17:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably safe to assume a person's attitudes can change much from 1967 to 1997, as America changed much. The transcript definetely places Carmichael in the forefront of what was known then as the black pride movement. Nobs18:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, people's attitudes can definitely change over time. I think we can count ourselves fortunate that Carmichael's didn't. He still has an impressive way of expressing himself even thirty years later. -Rob 20:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
From what I can see, Nobs has no point at all here. And as far as hearing someone call someone him a "traitor", what high-profile political figure didn't get flack like that from one side or the other in Vietnam-era America? Hell, what low-profile political activist on either side didn't get flack like that? I was certainly called that and worse. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jmabel. Nobs has no point at all. -Rob 18:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Very true; keep in mind Stokely Carmicheal was among the first, if not the first to wear such an honor. Also, this discusssion has been transplanted from the Talk:Russell Tribunal page; I don't know what purpose it serves here. Nobs17:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about Stokely Charmichael was copied (not transplanted) here for further discussion because this is where such a discussion belongs. If you are going to trash someone, why not allow the widest audience of interested wiki-readers to participate as well? -Rob 22:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
[resetting margin] FWIW, I first heard Carmichael in person circa 1973 (I was in college at the time); his primary agenda at that point was socialist, not racial. The crowd I heard him with was racially mixed; he did give a separate talk earlier that day to an all-black audience (including someone I was living with at the time) and I gather that his talk was similar, except for a more specific plea to black students to support one another when he was talking only to black students. This is not very long after the height of the "black power" era. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say we've carried Stokely Carmicheal about as far as we can go vis-a-vis his judicial temperment to vote about Johnson era war crimes and his nonjudicial attitude toward unindictited war criminals, i.e. Robert McNamara. I suppose it is possible for one to use racist language, with the intent to impugn or denigrate all members of a given race, without being a racist (some may dispute that however). As a personal aside, IMHO over the past several months I've noticed you (under whichever name you use) attempt to make every discussion some sort of exchange of personal motivations. Originally I thought we were singing from the same song sheet on the Russell Tribunal page, the goal of bringing to light human rights concerns as the common ground. Somehow I'm left with the impression that your concern over the Russell Tribunal page has more to do with preserving a record of criticism of war crimes in the Johnson era (or broadly speaking, criticism of American foreign policy and failings) than with the stated human rights objectives of the original 1967 Tribunal. I favor a more broadminded approach. I am always open to personal criticism, and where I'm wrong in an assertion, I appreciate the help of others. I can be persuaded by logically driven, factually driven arguements. My mind in not set in any partisan concrete. I'm not out to sell an agenda. My motivations have always been to establish the facts and let the chips fall where they may. And of course we're always dealing with flawed human beings, so perhaps my approach does come accross as iconoclastic toward hero worshippers and those in search of a false messiah in the flesh. --Nobs? Nobs05:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd say we've carried Stokely Carmicheal about as far as we can go vis-a-vis his judicial temperment to vote about Johnson era war crimes and his nonjudicial attitude toward unindictited war criminals, i.e. Robert McNamara." That's nice. I'd be interested in reviewing such a discussion if you could provide a link to it. Don't expect me to participate in that discussion, however -- I'll leave that to you guys. I've already given my opinion above on the matter of one person sitting in judgement on others: any living, breathing soul on this earth is capable of casting judgements, and usually does.
"I suppose it is possible for one to use racist language, with the intent to impugn or denigrate all members of a given race, without being a racist (some may dispute that however)." I disagree. Either you have racist intent, or your don't. Apparently it is easy for some, however, to read disparaging words and automatically assume racism where none exists.
"As a personal aside, IMHO over the past several months I've noticed you (under whichever name you use) attempt to make every discussion some sort of exchange of personal motivations." As I've only used one name, and I've only exchanged words with you over the past month, I'll assume you refer to someone else -- perhaps the same person with whom you discussed Johnson and McNamara? As for me, I've always been very clear on your motivations.
As for the posting of your resume above: "I favor a ... I am always open to ... I appreciate the ... I can be persuaded ... My mind is not ... I'm not out to ... My motivations have ... my approach does ..." You've come to the wrong person seeking validation. -Rob 18:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
yes, I figured in closing I would answer the many personal approaches you've placed toward me. Nobs18:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this article be moved to Kwame Ture? Wikipedia precedent generally respects name changes (e.g. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Muhammad Ali). Since Carmichael chose this name and held it for the last two decades of his life, I think that the article should be moved to that name. Firebug06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is yes, but on the other hand he is more widely known as Carmichael, so you could argue that the naming convention should have him here. Guettarda13:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So much better known by his older name that when he went on speaking tours, he was always listed as "Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael)". Kareem Abdul-Jabbar achieved his greatest fame under his adopted name (I bet few people under 40 could give his birth name, even if they are basketball fans); Muhammad Ali is slightly less clearcut, but certainly his birth name doesn't have higher recognition than his adopted name. -- Jmabel | Talk07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I agree. The name of the article should reflect the wishes of the person it's about. When I first heard of this remarkable man, it was his chosen name and not his birth name that was said. P.S. I'd like to give a big thanks to everyone who has contributed information about this unfortunately little-known activist. Vote Socialist! -- H3xx22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it absolutely makes sense to move this to Kwame Ture. It was the name he was known by for many years at the end of his life (though he did often still use Stokely Carmichael, for example in the author listing of his autobiography--I assume simply because many knew him only by that name) and as has been said Wikipedia generally seems to go with the name that a subject preferred. Also because of the coolness of redirects, someone who types "Stokely Carmichael" and has never heard of Kwame Ture will obviously still get to the correct article (and may be more likely to notice his name change as a result). I would vote for a move to Kwame Ture (and might even get all bold and do it at some point) but will wait to see what other editors think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs07:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the general rule is not what the person calls him or herself, but what he or she is most known as ("what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" from WP:NAME) which is generally the name that the person achieved notability under. Although he did use Kwame Ture for many years, his notability was achieved under Stokely Carmichael, and it is most likely that readers would look for that name. So I think we have to stick with Stokely Carmichael as the name of the article. Tvoz|talk08:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tvoz for that info, I had not read the WP:NAME policy before and was thus laboring under a misconception. I do think it's an interesting policy choice though to default to the name which is more recognizable to more people over that which any given subject generally preferred (particularly in a case such as this, where the name Kwame Ture is hardly an obscure version of Stokely Carmichael). On the one hand it obviously makes sense to go with the more recognizable name for the purposes of a user friendly encyclopedia, yet such a choice does a certain amount of violence to a very fundamental concept in our society--namely the idea that you call people whatever it is they like to be called. I don't necessarily disagree with the policy, but I wish the WP:NAME page at least acknowledged the tension there. I think such tension is particularly evident with someone like Kwame Ture (and any number of other individuals), who in choosing his name was quite consciously breaking with his given name and the society that bestowed it upon him. In insisting on using "Stokely Carmichael" for this article we in a sense rob Ture of his chosen identity and the particular critique of American society (in this case racism as Ture perceived it) contained therein. When you think about it in this admittedly rarefied and abstract way--which I may not be expressing well--it's a bit of an odd, anti-individualist (perhaps even vaguely Big Brotherish--or that might just be some Foucault nonsense coming out my head) thing to do while at the same time being a fairly common sense rule for a good encyclopedia. Anyhow these are just random musings which can safely be ignored. Thanks for the guidance on this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added material to the article today which I believe resolves this issue. My own feeling was initially that this needed to be moved to Kwame Ture, but Carmichael himself spoke about the issue with a Washington Post reporter while on his deathbed and "didn't seem to mind" interchangeable use of both names. So now, I lean towards the use of the name under which he became most famous, Stokely Carmichael, with appropriate redirects. -- Lisasmall17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to Carmichael's extraordinary contribution to the Civil Rights Movement, shouldn't the article also make mention of the famous incident in which Casey Hayden asked, "what is the position of womyn in SNCC" in response to a growing sense of patriarchy within the organization and Stokely Carmichael answered, "prone." Not to present a dynamic view of the individual and organization presents an incomplete picture of the time, the movement, and the man. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.141.4.148 (talk • contribs) 14 March 2006.
"Womyn"? I don't think I've seen anyone seriously use that spelling in over a decade.
Yes, the quotation probably belongs (though not with this bizarre respelling). The problem is, in writing an encyclopedia article, that it's hard to know quite what to say about something that was clearly on some level a joke, and the question is how the joke was meant. See, for example, Mark & Paul Engler's review of Carmichael/Ture's Ready for Revolution] (written with Michael Thelwell).
On the organizer’s behalf, Thelwell convincingly argues that Carmichael’s infamous sexist remark (answering “prone” to a question about the place of women in the movement) was a joke taken out of context. Mary King and Casey Hayden, the supposed targets of the quip, defend Carmichael as being one of the men in SNCC most sympathetic to their criticisms of patriarchy within the organization.
So, it's pretty ambiguous. If we are going to write about it, someone should probably dig up a copy of Ready for Revolution and see what Thelwell has to say. -- Jmabel | Talk03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed this issue with people who have personally interviewed Carmichael and women within SNCC regarding the remarks. It was a joke. 192.249.1.145 (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quote that links to David Horowitz is a very bad quote. It is a lie. Kwame Ture was never a hater of Trinidad and Tobago. I wish you would remove it. Neither was he a Racist. A Racialist, maybe but not a racist. He came back to Trinidad and gave a lecture before he died preaching Racial tolerance,... . —This unsigned comment was added by Ishango (talk • contribs) 16 March 2006.
Ishango's remark here is very confusing. Nothing in the article says that Carmichael/Ture was "a hater of Trinidad and Tobago." Nor does anything in the article say he was a racist. I happen to disagree -- utterly -- with Horowitz, and think the statement reflects more on Horowitz than Carmichael, and I probably wouldn't have put it there (it's nothing but a substanceless putdown), but probably for such a controversial figure something negative/critical ought to be here. I'd gladly see something more substantive instead of Horowitz calling him "bad". - Jmabel | Talk03:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a lot more of this could be cited from the King Encyclopedia article from which I've cited some of the basics. It might be worth someone's time to comb that for citable material. - Jmabel | Talk02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that way, find a verifiable citation and post an NPOV sentence or two about this. We ought to remember the dangers, though, of using today's sensibilities in evaluating what people said in the past. The movement was filled with people - men- who fought for equal rights and justice and yet were appallingly sexist, certainly by today's standards. Stokely no doubt said that, but he was hardly the only one - not by a long shot. Tvoz07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No small number of movement women have said that Carmichael was, in practice, an advocate for women within SNCC and the Panthers, and that while it may have been a joke in poor taste, it was not representative of his views. - Jmabel | Talk21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Casey Hayden remark at [2]; see also [3]: "Mary King and Casey Hayden, the supposed targets of the quip, defend Carmichael as being one of the men in SNCC most sympathetic to their criticisms of patriarchy within the organization." - Jmabel | Talk21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[4] says he was "close to the Young People's Socialist League", but if anything this casts further doubt on the claim that he was a member. I am removing that. - Jmabel | Talk21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, it was around 1971, when Stokely came to the States, made a major address at Howard University, calling for the need for a political party for Africans on the continent and in the diaspora. Shortly thereafter, he announced the founding of the AAPRP. The party still exists. Nothing in the article mentions it. No time right now. Perhaps someone else is interested in adding it. deeceevoice11:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a slight reference to the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party today as the source for the New York Times obit reference to two sons, instead of one. I agree with you, the article needs more about Ture's role in the A-APRP, but I've given the article three hours today and can't do more. I notice you don't use the hyphen, and I wouldn't either — but the Wiki article does use it, as does kwameture.com. -- Lisasmall17:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to need some reference to Carmichael's role in the 1968 Washington, D.C. riots. That article states he lead a group of SNCC members requesting stores to close out of respect for the assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King. Curious as this article states he was essentially removed as head of SNCC in 1967. Scarykitty16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else feel like this portrays Carmichael (and the radical black nationalists in general) in a bit of an overly positive tone? At times, I felt more like I was reading propaganda than an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.169.131 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article (as read here) is excellent in my opinion. Very good summary, very encyclopedic, very well written, and an excellent presentation of Carmichael's ideas as well as the environment in which those ideas were developed. Just thought I'd say good job. :) Uwmad (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There isn't enough here on Ture's involvement in SNCC prior to his involvement in the 1966 Black Power controversy. This sorely underestimates his contribution to the organization and thus decontextualises his 'conversion' to Black Power. There should be something on his involvement in the freedom rides and the roots of his role in Lowndes County. This will enable greater understanding of his developing understanding of US race relations.
But the frustrations are obvious nonetheless. To an unrepentant revolutionary, what may look to others like progress against racism is unimpressive, or even counterproductive. Take the advances by African Americans in electoral politics. "They make them mayors and took away the power of mayorship," he says, dismissing the phenomenon, not having to identify who "they" are. "They made powerless mayorships."
As word of King's murder in Memphis, Tennessee spread on the evening of Thursday, April 4, 1968 crowds began to gather at 14th and U Streets NW in Washington DC. Carmichael led members of the SNCC to stores in the neighborhood demanding that they close out of respect for King. Although polite at first, the crowd fell out of control and began breaking windows. By 11pm, widespread looting had begun, as well as in over 30 other cities.
Mayor-Commissioner Walter Washington ordered the damage cleaned up immediately the next morning. However, anger was still evident when Carmichael addressed a rally at Howard University warning of violence on Friday morning. After the close of the rally, crowds walking down 7th Street NW came into violent confrontations with police, as well as in the H Street NE corridor. By midday, numerous buildings were on fire, with firefighters attacked with bottles and rocks and unable to respond to them.
The riots continued as crowds overwhelmed the District's police force, followed by President Lyndon Johnson dispatching federal troops and the D.C. National Guard. By the time the city was considered pacified on Sunday, April 8, twelve had been killed, mostly in burning homes, 1,097 injured, and over 6,100 arrested. Additionally, some 1,200 buildings had been burned, including over 900 stores. Damages reached $27 million. This can be estimated to be equivalent to over $156 million today.
The riots utterly devastated Washington's inner city economy. With the destruction or closing of businesses, thousands of jobs were lost, and insurance rates soared. Made uneasy by the violence, city residents of all races accelerated their departure for suburban areas, depressing property values. Crime in the burned out neighborhoods rose sharply, further discouraging investment.
On some blocks, only rubble remained for decades. Columbia Heights and the U Street corridor did not begin to recover economically until the opening of the U St/Cardozo and Columbia HeightsMetro stations in 1991 and 1999, respectively, while the H Street NE corridor remained depressed for several years longer.
Walter Washington, who reportedly refused FBI director J. Edgar Hoover's suggestion to shoot the rioters, went on to become the city's first elected mayor and its first black mayor.[1]
References
^"First Black D.C. Mayor Walter Washington Dies". Jet. 104 (20). Johnson Publishing Company: 6. Nov 10. ISSN0021-5996. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
I added Foxman's comments in. If someone can find a source that verifies the above claim that Carmichael distinguished between Zionists and Jews, then that would be a worhty clarification to add. LastDodo (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charmichael left SNCC In 1967 and This Article is More Like A Fanpage than An Encylopedia Article
He may have worked with them to forge a merger between 1967 and 1968 and remained in name only, but he officially left SNCC to join the Black Panthers in 1967. The Kathleen Cleaver source notes how he was close to H. Rap Brown We need to include all sides and say things "mixed" instead of "largely positive." This is part of the reason why Wikipedia is losing editors184.97.240.101 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I included three sources to refute you. Furthermore, he did not even join the Panthers until February 1968. Please do not attempt to insert factual errors into Wikipedia again, or our quality editors will root you out.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says he "became one of the first two African Americans whose voter registration was successfully processed in Lowndes County", Alabama. That implies that he claimed US citizenship at that time.
This article uses two different spellings of Stokely Carmichael's alternate name. Is it KwameTouré or KwameTure? I don't know which is correct, or are both versions correct? Bunkyray5 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as there is no current Wikipedia page for this book, I'm going to walk through its basic principles here.
The first chapter talks about racism and white power in America. It distinguishes between the two types of racism, "overt and covert," [1] and the colonial aspects taking place. The institutional racism, described as covert, is something that is overlooked by white people because they are not committing a specific act of individual racism. However, the colonial aspects can be seen in political, economic, and social aspects. These aspects stay relevant today, nearly 50 years after the original publication. With current issues such as police brutality, there only being two current black US Senators, and wage gaps, it is impossible to deny that these issues have not and are not close to being resolved.
The book continues into defining Black Power and stating the need for it. He outlines steps black people must make in the United States in order to "carve out a place for themselves in the politico-social order." [2] The steps go from redefining identities to political modernization, what he defines as "questioning old values and institutions of the society, searching for new and different forms of political structure to solve political and economic problems, and broadening the base of political participation to include more people in the decision-making process." [3] He accentuates the necessity for black people to lead and run their own organizations. Power is essential because it is the core of American politics.
Much of the book is specific examples that serve as evidence for his points. He makes it abundantly clear that change must be made. He outlines the fundamental ways things should happen and the consequential outcomes for disregarding the necessary changes. He states that there are no other real alternatives. "The choice lies between a genuinely new approach and maintaining the brutalizing, destructive, violence-breeding life of the ghettos as they exist today. From the viewpoint of black people, that is no choice." [4]Nwright3 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Stokely Carmichael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Stokely Carmichael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Is it not due to the historical legacy of the suppression of black civil rights activists - and the lack of recognition that black people have faced regarding their own agency - that the heading for this wiki is Stokely Carmichael and not Kwame Ture? Why bother acknowledging that Carmichel is his birth name in the first in-line paragraph on the page if it's titled after his birth name and not his chosen name as well? This choice is seemingly redundant. Getting into fights with moderators who keep telling me to post this here - maybe I'm naive to the 'process' of Wikipedia edits and this is how it's done. Bottom line is that there's no reason for the Wiki page heading / title to not use his correct, chosen name, Kwame Ture. The black community for whom he fought and dedicated his work knows him as Kwame Ture. He chose this name for himself as a means of distancing himself from the legacy of slavery that led to his Christian name and to honor his African mentors. To not recognize that is to perpetuate racism. As we are participating in the production and accessibility of historical information, it is crucial to reflect upon the choices that we're making here - it has a direct result on the way people accessing this page will remember him. Can I propose we consider editing the page title from Stokely Carmichael to Kwame Ture? Phonometrics (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should go the best-known name for the person. The appropriate analogy is with Yusaf Islam, who is correctly listed under Cat Stevens. Nobody knows who Kwame Ture is. This move should be reverted, and Phometrics shouldn't poison the well of the debate with accusations of racism. If racism was the impetus for naming the pages, then Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X would be listed under their birth names, and they're not.—Chowbok☠01:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody knows who Kwame Ture is" - this is the essence of the problem. You may not know. Back in the late 80s when I first learned about the Trinidadian-born Pan Africanist Kwame Ture, I was vaguely aware that he was born Stokely Carmichael - just like I was aware that Muhammad Ali had once been Cassius Clay. But it was ancient history, while Kwame Ture was an important voice at the time. I didn't even know he had been an important activist in the US in the 60s until 10 or 15 years later.
Ture had a 7-year career in the US as an activist, followed by a 30-year career in Africa. Americans are only aware of the first seven, and that's fine - you only pay attention to someone when they're active on a stage that you care about. But that inward-looking attitude isn't good for trying to write an encyclopaedia that aims to be something more than "the world as seen by Americans". Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good case in point in Peniel Joseph's biography, which is probably the most important biographic works. Joseph's book is about Stokely Carmichael, not Kwame Ture - 15 chapters span the period up to the end of 1968, one chapter covers the last 30 years of his life. Joseph isn't entirely dismissing those later 30 years, he's just fairly clear in his belief that they aren't relevant to the Civil Rights struggle in the US. As one of the (kinder) reviews of Joseph's book puts it
The first 30 years of Carmichael's life span the first 300 pages, while the last 25 years—during which he changed his name to Kwame Ture as a way to honor Nkrumah and Sékou Touré—are condensed into roughly 25 more episodic pages. One of the book's great strengths is the depth devoted to the 1960–1968 years, even as it also becomes one of its few weaknesses.
Joseph is an academic who's working on what interests him, and that's fine. We have an obligation to take a less narrow view of what we cover. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just because Americans focus in on the US Civil Rights struggle, doesn't mean there was not a Civil Rights struggle happening everywhere. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade went both ways. Ture's activist career continued on long after his tenure in the US - as this article also addresses. Phonometrics (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So we're sticking with his birth name?
Caitlyn Jenner was more famous by her prior name, but deadnaming is rude and inaccurate. Why should we not respect Kwame Ture's name just because his prior name is better-known? Blackjeremiah (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So we're sticking with his birth name?
Caitlyn Jenner was more famous by her prior name, but deadnaming is rude and inaccurate. Why should we not respect Kwame Ture's name just because his prior name is better-known? Blackjeremiah (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackjeremiah: Please read the following section, Talk:Stokely Carmichael#Requested move 29 March 2019: This was discussed starting 2019-03-29 and closed 2019-04-16, saying "After two listing periods, there is little agreement on which of the two names is the common name, and no sign that a consensus has emerged or is likely to emerge." (That discussion ended with data from both Google Scholar and JSTOR indicating over 6 times as many hits for Carmichael as for Ture.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus so moving back to the long-term stable title of Stokely Carmichael. After two listing periods, there is little agreement on which of the two names is the common name, and no sign that a consensus has emerged or is likely to emerge. — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kwame Ture → Stokely Carmichael – This was moved with no notice and little discussion. Per long-standing WP policy, articles should be under the name that the subject is best known as, not what he/she wanted to be known as. As Phonometrics's comment makes clear, the move was made for political reasons rather than policy ones. —Chowbok☠ 01:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk)15:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article has used Kwame Ture since June 2010, with no objection. If you look at recent usage (e.g., Google Scholar) Kwame Ture seems to be more common than Stokely Carmichael. As for your claims about "political reasons", the comment suggests that his slave name is retained for political reasons.
Usage in the article supports Kwame Ture, WP:COMMONNAME is at best equivocal in terms of current usage, and your claims that this is political are a misrepresentation of the facts. Guettarda (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chowbok - I must say, I'm baffled by your question. I made a conclusion based on the fact that are available to me, and you expect me to revise my opinion based on the actions of another Wikipedian? That's even worse logic than your false claim that no one has heard the name Kwame Ture. Guettarda (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have a 7-year period in which he's a notable activist in the US. In that period he goes by Stokely Carmichael. But that was over half a century ago. He then goes on to have another 30-year career outside the US, where he continues to do notable things. So sure, people who knew him in the 60s, and people who stopped paying attention after he left the US (because, let's face it, Americans aren't good at paying attention to what's going on in Africa) only recognise him as Carmichael. But we shouldn't be writing an encyclopaedia that only cares about whether the US is paying attention. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember also that this present historical moment is even more significant - especially because Spike Lee recently won an Oscar for a film that directly portrays Kwame Ture, as well as the implied racism of referring to him as Stokely Carmichael. I am a philosophy student who refers to institutional racism constantly - and I didn't even learn that this was a phrase coined by Ture until I saw Lee's film and read about Ture on Wikipedia! We don't refer to Cat Stevens as Yousef Islam on WP because Cat Stevens is his stage name - just as we do refer to Muhammed Ali instead of Cassius Clay because it is not. Kwame Ture is not a stage name. I pushed to have the page title changed because we have the option to affect the way he will be remembered, and it's important that we reflect on the choices we're making on that front. The politics of education and knowledge production matter in this space regardless of policy. As Guettarda said, I was suggesting that retaining Carmichael in the page title is a political move, based in the very institutional racism that he spoke out against! To maintain and validate the change for 'unbiased' and usage-based (GBook) reasons over someone's individual, agential choice denies them the agency that led to the change in the first place. I can't believe it even needs to be argued that a black civil rights activist's Wikipedia page should be named after him. Phonometrics (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that since you're specifically saying that this page should be left at Ture for political reasons and "regardless of policy", your !vote should be discounted.—Chowbok☠20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to say to your analogy to Cat Stevens, I see? The point is I think the very fact that you're saying that I'm making a political comment is a political comment in and of itself. Reflect on what you're saying. Again, Kwame Ture is not a stage name - it is the man's legal name - one he spent the majority of his life with. Phonometrics (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar puts all time mentions of Kwame Ture at 14,400 and of Stokely Carmichael at 13,900. There are 1,600 articles that cite Stokely Carmichael on JSTOR and 1,800 that cite Kwame Ture. Only US editions of his books still hold onto Stokely Carmichael as author - and many of them have Kwame Ture listed as the main author, with Carmichael bracketed. The only argument you have made thus far in support of the reversion is that I'm making a political argument, which again, is not an argument in and of itself. I repeat, the man legally changed his name to Kwame Ture and spent the majority of life with that name. Phonometrics (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looking at a variety of sources, I see both names commonly used. Given that the subject himself chose the name Kwame Ture, I think we'd need a strong reason to use something other than the subject's stated preference. I would note that using either name is irreducibly political, just for different politics, so that line of argument is also a wash for me. I also think there's a lot of merit to Guettarda's point about Wikipedia not being US-centric. -- William Pietri (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".
According to Prof. Peniel E. Joseph in his book Stokely: A Life on this page,
"Carmichael explained his discision to adopt the name Kwame Ture in 1979 as a tribute to his two African mentors, Kwame Nkrumah and Sékou Touré."
A review of Google Ngram, Google Books, and Google Scholar reveals the following:
Google Ngram - Stokely Carmichael is more dominant than Kwame Ture since 1979
Google Books - Stokely Carmichael: unknown hits (custom date range from 1/1/1979 to 4/1/2019)
Google Books - Kwame Ture: unknown hits (custom date range from 1/1/1979 to 4/1/2019)
Google Scholar - Stokely Carmichael: 10,800 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
Google Scholar - Kwame Ture: 1,570 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
Mitchumch - Using 1979 as the cut-off date biases things hopelessly toward his slave name. But that's not current usage. Current usage, sources from this century, tend to lean towards Stokely. And even there, you have books like Joseph's which focus on his activism in the 1960s (at which time "Stokely" is the appropriate name to use). Not to mention that there's a huge US-centric bias in the older literature, and a habitual dismissal of the adoption of African names. Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Using 1979 as the cut-off ...": The policy WP:NAMECHANGES as shown above demands that Wikipedia use whatever name is most frequently used in reliable sources after the name change. After 1979, that name is Stokely Carmichael.
"But that's not current usage ...": I demonstrated through Google Ngram and Google Scholar that it is current usage.
"Current usage, sources ...": All sources since the year of his name change - 1979 - use Stokely Carmichael, not only 21st century sources.
"And even there, you have books like Joseph's ...": I used Joseph's book as a source to determine the date of the name change, not as definitive proof of what this article should be titled.
"Not to mention that there's a huge US-centric ...": I can only rely on sources available to me. If you have proof that Ture is used more often, then please present your sources.
"a habitual dismissal of the adoption ...": I respect your desire to retain an African name for Ture, but that desire is not a guiding policy on Wikipedia. WP:NAMECHANGES is the applicable policy for this situation. Mitchumch (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The policy WP:NAMECHANGES as shown above demands - Um, no, the policy does not "demand". It says to give more weight to sources after, it does not say that you must give equal weight to all sources starting from the date the name change is adopted.
I demonstrated through Google Ngram and Google Scholar - No, you didn't. Google NGrams run until 2000. That's almost a generation ago. NGrams can show historical usage, but they cannot show current usage. I'm skeptical that you're getting good results off Google Scholar. For starters, both searches don't go past page 100 - it's impossible to spot-check those results.. In addition, if you remove the quotes around the phrase, the number of hits for Kwame Ture goes up to 13k, while the number of hits for Stokely Carmichael doesn't change. Counting numbers of Google hits is kinda garbage.
You chose to declare the most meaningful results to be "unknown". Google Books is relatively finite. There are 32 hits for each name in the time period. Not so many that they can't be spot-checked.
All sources since the year of his name change - 1979 - use Stokely Carmichael, not only 21st century sources - All sources? Not true.
I used Joseph's book as a source to determine the date of the name change, not as definitive proof of what this article should be titled And I used Joseph's book to show that you can't just Google a book and use it to show usage. As I said above, Joseph's books spends 15 chapters on the period up to 1968, and only chapter for the period 1968-1998, so it makes sense that he's using Carmichael because it would be anachronistic to do otherwise. Which means that you have to downweight a source like Joseph's. This is why you can't just count hits and draw conclusions about usage.
If three sources say "Kwame Ture (born Stokely Carmichael)" and the fourth just say "Stokely Carmichael", you have 3 KT's versus 4 SCs, even though you have three authors using KT as their main reference, and one using SC.
I can only rely on sources available to me - Look, the point of a discussion is to consider sources, not to count Google hits. Otherwise you're simply reproducing underlying systemic bias in Google. There's a reason why WP:GOOGLE exists. But there's more than that - and I used Joseph's book as an example of why this is a problem. American sources care about Stokely Carmichael the civil rights figure. Kwame Ture, the Pan-Africanist is a much more difficult figure. You're not supposed to act as an automaton, you're supposed to assess sources. That's what being a Wikipedia editor is about.
I respect your desire to retain an African name for Ture, but that desire is not a guiding policy on Wikipedia. WP:NAMECHANGES is the applicable policy for this situation. You're misinterpreting the section. It only says that we don't give equal weight to sources published before the name change as we do sources from after the change. What's even more critical - and why you can only interpret policy in the context of the whole corpus of policy is an understanding that usage can change. We give don't only give more weight to sources from after 1979, we also give more weight to sources from after 2000. Because we need to represent current usage.
It's pretty clear to me that current usage does not break conclusively towards Carmichael. And since there's no clear distinction, the onus is on us to respect the subject's wishes and stick with Ture. Because that's most consistent with how we name things, and how we treat people. Guettarda (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keep the current title of Kwame Ture. Because of the usefulness of Wikipedia redirects, anyone searching for Stokely Carmichael will instantly end up at Kwame Ture, and the first sentence makes it clear, in bold type, that these two names refer to the same person. Ture chose his own name as a tribute to his two African mentors and used it consistently for the last two decades of his life. Calling a person by their own preferred name is a basic component of human dignity and respect for others. Speaking as a 67 year old man who was a white supporter of the Black Power movement as a youth, Stokely Carmichael is the name that comes most readily to my mind, but what really counts most is his own preference and also coverage in reliable sources worldwide, which have trended toward Kwame Ture in recent decades. Because the incidence of the two names is close and not decisive, I believe that we should defer to the subject's preference in this specific situation. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting and relevant to this discussion is that the lead sentences of both the Washington Post story written shortly before his death and the New York Times obituary call him "Kwame Ture". In depth, comprehesive coverage of his whole life by highly reliable sources should be given more weight than sources that consist of passing mentions of his 1960s activism in the U.S. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's not true that Google Ngram stops at 2000. It's also not true that recent usage in Google Scholar favors "Kwami Ture" (or even that it is roughly balanced). Here is a plot from Google Ngram just from 2000 onwards. That's not just a web search – it's a search of published books. It shows a clear preference for "Stokely Carmichael", doesn't it? It's not close – it shows about a 10:1 ratio. The same is true or even much more skewed in favor of "Stokely Carmichael" no matter which time period you look at. This seems similar to the Cat Stevens situation to me. Searching Google Scholar sources since 2000 shows 8,820 results for "Stokely Carmichael" and only 1,430 results for "Kwame Ture". It's important to use quote marks around the names when searching Google Scholar to prevent spurious off-topic results. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:BarrelProof and the fact that the subject is dead. As the article is currently structured, he is notable primarily for activities as "Stokely Carmichael" and he is no longer of this Earth to have a personal name preference (WP:BDP). — AjaxSmack21:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guettarda & Phonometrics An additional point is the number of hits for names Kwame Ture and Kwame Nkrumah in Google Ngram, Google Scholar, and JSTOR. (Note: I excluded Sékou Touré because his last name is spelled differently than Ture. I also excluded Google Books due to a lack of data when the date is limited from 1979 to 2019):
Google Ngram - Kwame Ture is the least dominant among the names Kwame Ture, Stokely Carmichael, and Kwame Nkrumah
Google Scholar - Kwame Nkrumah: 26,100 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
Google Scholar - Stokely Carmichael: 10,600 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
Google Scholar - Kwame Ture: 1,560 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
JSTOR - Kwame Nkrumah: 3,887 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
JSTOR - Stokely Carmichael: 3,328 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
JSTOR - Kwame Ture: 374 hits (custom date range from 1979 to 2019)
I presented this data to address Guettarda's point "... if you remove the quotes around the phrase, the number of hits for Kwame Ture goes up to 13k, while the number of hits for Stokely Carmichael doesn't change." The presence of Kwame Nkrumah probably resulted in much higher hits for Kwame Ture. The data also explains why Ngram constantly since 1979 shows Stokely Carmichael as the dominant name over Kwame Ture. BarrelProof was correct in stating, "It's important to use quote marks around the names when searching Google Scholar to prevent spurious off-topic results."Mitchumch (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Can someone please add the date of the name change, preferably with a brief section on what he did before vs. after the name change?
I'm an old white guy born in 1944. I remember him as Stokely Carmichael.
A friend asked me to watch a video of him from 1966, labeled "Dr Kwame Ture Black Power Speech 1966". I don't know when he changed his name, but I'm pretty sure it was after 1966. This article should include that detail, I think.
@AlsoWukai: Why did you revert the link in put to Lowndes County, Alabama for the first reference to Lowndes County in the section on Lowndes County Freedom Organization?
I put that link there after searching the article for several minutes to find which Lowndes County was involved. In fact, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi all have counties named Lowndes. Eventually I found the Wikipedia article on the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, which said that its headquarters were in Lowndes County, Alabama.
In retrospect, I think we should do the following:
Add {{Main|Lowndes County Freedom Organization}} right after the heading, per Template:Main.
Replace the first mention of "Lowndes County" in that section with a link to [[Lowndes County, Alabama]].
Because it is linked earlier in the article. But it is reasonable to link it again the first time it is mentioned in this section, I agree. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What did Carmichael actually do for a living? The article doesn't seem to say. For most people, earning a living is the dominant factor in their lives. If this did not apply to him somehow, it's rather extraordinary. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AlsoWukai: Why did you revert the link to American imperialism?
It seems to me that if the term "American imperialism" is appropriate in that context, then the link should also be.
Alternatively, if Kwame Ture (per the name he almost certainly used when he said what was quoted in that obit) actually used those words but likely meant something very different from what is in the "American imperialism" article, then I think the best way would be to include an explanation of that with a link, e.g., <ref>When Kwame Ture ascribed his cancer to "American imperialism", he probably mean _______________. That seems substantively different from the content of the Wikipedia article on "[[American imperialism]]".</ref>
Without researching the issue myself, from what I know of the life of Carmichael / Ture, it seems that such a link would be appropriate, though perhaps to 'American imperialism#Post-1954: Korea, Vietnam and "imperial internationalism"', so it displays as "American imperialism" to match the quote, using [[American imperialism#Post-1954: Korea, Vietnam and "imperial internationalism"|American imperialism]]. ???
I don't think vague terms in quotations should be wikilinked. We don't know exactly what Ture meant. Let his words stand uninterpreted. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. That term is used widely enough to merit it's own Wikipedia article. We never know exactly what anyone means about anything they say. If you have issues with the vagueness of the term, your reservations should be documented in the Wikipedia article on "American imperialism" unless they seem specific to what Ture may have meant, in which case they belong in a footnote.
I think anything else is a violation of Wikipedia:Policypedia/NPOV, depriving Wikipedia readers of easy access to that general discussion of that term.
There were eighteen entries in the "External links" including two subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
@Glane23: FYI, Hideki Naganuma is a Japanese composer and DJ, who produced a song "The Concept of Love" in 2002, which is documented in WhoSampled. I do NOT know if it sampled Carmichael's speeches, though I suspect it does.
If you or someone else has time, it should be worth checking. I've never used WhoSampled, and I'm not eager to start now. However, if the claim is correct that, "Carmichael's speeches have been sampled by composer and DJ Hideki Naganuma", then it is presumable more informative to say that, 'Carmichael's speeches have been sampled by Japanese composer and DJ Hideki Naganuma's song "Concept of Love"', and then link to an appropriate reference. Sadly, I'm not prepared to check that myself right now. I hope someone else will. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidMCEddy: I pared the statement down a bit, but really the question is whether WhoSampled is a reliable source or a primary source, such that the whole section should be removed. I'm leaving it alone for now in hope that others will weigh in on that fundamental question. Geoff | Who, me?13:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
